Forum: pol
Page 3409
Subject: Healthcare Debates II - The Dems Strike Back!


  Posted by: biliruben - [16105237] Fri, Mar 05, 2010, 08:27

It is a dark time for the
US People. Although the Bush-Cheney cabal has been destroyed,
Tea Party know-nothings have driven the
Driven moderates from hidding
and pursued them across
the galaxy.

Evading the dreaded Republican
Filibuster, a group of freedom
fighters led by Barack Obama
has established a new plan to finally champion's the people's cause
and show some spine through attempting to pass a bill through reconciliation.

The evil lord Palin,
obsessed with harassing young Obama, has dispatched
thousands of tea partiers into
the far reaches middle America...
 
1biliruben
� � � ID: 16105237
� � � Fri, Mar 05, 2010, 08:31
Despite my silliness, it would be nice to discuss the intricacies of Reconciliation. I don't know much about it, other than that's how the tax-cuts for the rich got jammed through by Bush.
 
2Boldwin
� � � ID: 421172615
� � � Fri, Mar 05, 2010, 08:32
What's the html to have the text scroll up and backwards?
 
3biliruben
� � � ID: 16105237
� � � Fri, Mar 05, 2010, 08:39
Good Question! It would have to be a moderator to edit it, even if we knew...


marquee direction=up /marquee
 
4Pancho Villa
� � � ID: 29118157
� � � Fri, Mar 05, 2010, 19:53
OK, I'm not all that enamored with some of the provisions in Obamacare, especially mandatory insurance coverage, but if anyone thinks the current system isn't broken, or that things will improve if reform is defeated, I ask that they respond to this article.

The market concentration for health insurance is so monopolized in some areas that insurance companies are willing to raise prices and lose customers in an effort to improve their bottom line, a leading insurance broker told Wall Street analysts on Wednesday.

In a conference call organized by Goldman Sachs Global Investment Research, Steve Lewis, a highly regarded broker at the world's third largest insurance broker, Willis, painted a picture of the health insurance market in which employers seem likely to be priced out of coverage.

Noting that "price competition" between insurers was "down from a year ago," Lewis relayed that "incumbent carriers seem more willing than ever to walk away from existing business."

The phenomenon of insurers pricing their policies beyond where consumers can afford it seems to be already taking place. Last month Anthem Blue Cross told customers it would hike their health insurance premiums by as much as 39 percent (with the expectation that some would drop coverage altogether). In December, the Huffington Post reported that Aetna was planning on losing more than 600,000 customers by raising prices on their consumers in 2010.

The remarks are as clear an indication as any that while the health insurance industry suffered greatly from the recession it remains remarkably well positioned to recoup those profits going forward -- principally because companies can raise prices without worrying about the market hit it will take.


If there were single payer or a public option, this kind of hostage taking by health insurers couldn't exist.
 
5Boldwin
� � � ID: 421172615
� � � Sat, Mar 06, 2010, 09:38
There is nothing broken about it that couldn't be fixed by removing the perverse incentives for price raising. Namely lawyers, government and insurance companies in the middle.

Yes, reasonable regulation of insurance is necessary, yes some minimal level of safety net is necessary, yes doctors can't malpractice without some penalty and oversight.

However this will not get healthy until the market forces simplify to one patient looking one health provider in the eye and arriving at a fair compensation.

Doctors paying and avoiding paying lawyers isn't working. Insurance companies paying and avoiding paying lawyers isn't working. Hospitals and doctors jacking up prices to faceless insurance companies with deep pockets isn't working.

Central planning and heartless bureaucrats and committees, turning health providers into underpaid robots will not work.
 
6Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Sat, Mar 06, 2010, 09:45
Doctors paying and avoiding paying lawyers isn't working. Insurance companies paying and avoiding paying lawyers isn't working. Hospitals and doctors jacking up prices to faceless insurance companies with deep pockets isn't working.

Good stuff. All true.

Unfortunately you went off the rails with the last part of your post. You continue to mischaracterize what is going on as "central planning." Central planning of any sort would require people to buy insurance from the government, not from private insurance companies.
 
7DWetzel
� � � ID: 33337117
� � � Sat, Mar 06, 2010, 10:12
"However this will not get healthy until the market forces simplify to one patient looking one health provider in the eye and arriving at a fair compensation. "

And in most businesses, this works pretty well. Not perfectly, but pretty well.

However, for a "free market", you need a number of things to be in place, basically none of which apply to health care. Here's what you need for a well functioning free market:

1. Low barriers to entry for new suppliers to enter the marketplace. In a case where demand outweighs supply, in a free market, this helps bring things back into equilibrium. I think it's safe to say that the current qualifications needed to become a doctor do not exactly qualify as "low barriers to entry". There's also substantial state and federal regulation in place. Some of that you can feel free to argue against, but some of it (such as licensing doctors to ensure that they know what they're doing) is highly necessary.

In the current system, with extremely high barriers to entry, health care providers are not incentivized at all to lower costs, because competition is not a major concern (more on this later).

2. Symmetry of information. In a highly specialized field such as health care, it's safe to say that the suppliers (doctors) have a huge information advantage over the demanders (patients).

In most cases this is blatantly self-evident--you have a weird pain in your side, you go to the doctor to figure out what the heck it is. If you already knew what it was, you wouldn't need the doctor. You certainly don't know how to treat that pain in your side effectively--you're at the mercy of the doctor to do whatever tests he thinks is necessary to help you. Would you really know if he ordered an extra test or three, or prescribed a more expensive drug to you than was necessary? In most cases, no you would not. Fortunately, most doctors are nice, ethical people who don't do that either out of fear of regulation or because they're just good people to begin with. In an economic sense though, they certainly aren't incentivized to do so.

3. Rational buyer and seller of services. Here's where health care and the free market really mesh poorly. Buyers of health care just are not rational about their health. That pain in my side... what if I could die from it? It might be a pulled muscle, it might be some bad taco cheese from last night, or maybe my liver's about to explode. Given those choices, I'll spend damn near everything it takes to make sure my liver doesn't explode. If you told me it took all my worldly possessions to not die, I'd do it, and so would most people. I suppose that may be logical behavior, but it's not rational in the free market sense of the word. Whenever the answer to "how much will it cost" is rendered irrelevant, a free market breaks down.

A rational buyer would take the time to shop around for a better price. People do this all the time. "Hey, that car is $300 cheaper at Sarge's Rust Emporium!" "I can get that same TV on Amazon for $25 less if I can wait three days for the shipping". "Meh, I can wait another couple of weeks until the paperback version of 'Boldwin and Jeremiah Wright Talk Bible' comes out."

You don't normally hear "hey, let me wait until March, Acme Medical usually does a St. Patrick's day emergency triple bypass special then".


To sum up: health care does not, never will, and should not act like a "free market" in the economic sense of the word.
 
8biliruben
� � � ID: 16105237
� � � Sat, Mar 06, 2010, 10:18
good post.
 
9Myboyjack
� � � Dude
� � � ID: 014826271
� � � Sat, Mar 06, 2010, 18:19
Is the market for health insurance more like a public utility (water, electricity) or more like a commodity you buy at one of many department stores. I'm not convinced either way.
 
10Seattle Zen
� � � Leader
� � � ID: 055343019
� � � Sat, Mar 06, 2010, 18:43
Utilities. In our society, you cannot and should not live without running water and electricity. It should be available to all at non-negotiable price, ideally there's a small subsidy for the poorest. For profit companies should not be able to charge exorbitant rates and profit because you simply must have water and power.

Differences - in most parts of the US, people have the ability to choose doctors unlike the ability to choose water and electricity, those are wired/plumbed. Water/electricity is fungible, healthcare quality can vary.

The bottom line for me is just like it's immoral to make a man dying of thirst haggle for water, it's immoral to make a man with a broken leg negotiate a fair price for fixing it.
 
11sarge33rd
� � � ID: 280311620
� � � Sat, Mar 06, 2010, 19:23
from post 5:

There is nothing broken about it that couldn't be fixed by removing the perverse incentives for price raising. Namely lawyers, government and insurance companies in the middle.

OK, just HOW exactly...would you suggest taking INSURANCE COMPANIES out of the middle, WITHOUT governmental intervention?
 
12DWetzel
� � � ID: 33337117
� � � Sat, Mar 06, 2010, 20:12
"Is the market for health insurance more like a public utility (water, electricity) or more like a commodity you buy at one of many department stores. I'm not convinced either way. "

Neither, really--though it depends a great deal on the health care you're talking about.

Routine checkup? More like a standard commodity.

Triple bypass? Much more like a utility.

The problem in many cases, due to asymmetry of information and due to the extreme (and mostly justified) irrationality of the consumer, is that most of the stuff in the middle acts a lot like a triple bypass even when it strictly doesn't need to. Not incidentally, this is why pushing for preventative care which is as widely distributed as possible is a Good Thing--a lot of those middle ground type issues can become a lot less of an emergency if they are caught early and if people can be educated on their early-stage health problems.
 
13Boldwin
� � � ID: 421172615
� � � Sat, Mar 06, 2010, 20:51
OK, just HOW exactly...would you suggest taking INSURANCE COMPANIES out of the middle, WITHOUT governmental intervention? - Sarge

I'd put them off to the side. The insurance or the medical savings plan pays the patient, the patient negotiates with and pays the health provider. I'm not arguing for zero regulation but I am arguing for the lowest feasible government involvement.
 
14Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Sat, Mar 06, 2010, 20:55
I think that overlooks one of the benefits in the 1980s of the role of HMOs to drive down the costs of many medical services. Insurance can have a positive benefit in terms of costing medical services (key word being "can") which would be removed if the patient, who has imperfect knowledge of the market, negotiates directly.

I won't jump into the argument about the market for health insurance being utility or not, since health insurance and health care are bound up in all sorts of ways, some of them market driven and some not. Health care is a utility, but nearly everyone who uses it does so through the benefits (and drawbacks) of their particular health insurance.
 
15Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Sat, Mar 06, 2010, 20:57
I should say, in general, I have no problem with the idea of the smallest government involvement. I've always felt that we should look first to the private sector, but have the government ready to step up in the case of clear market failures for clear social needs.

It's why we have the military, FEMA, and Social Security. And Medicare. And why the government should be more involved in setting up restrictions on health insurance companies while simultaneously increasing access to their products.
 
16biliruben
� � � ID: 16105237
� � � Sun, Mar 07, 2010, 09:10
Baldwin - can you flesh our your plan? Sounds like you think MSAs are the answer. What about the 50% of the population which has shown no ability to save for anything, much less potential health catastrophes?

What about those with chronic, expensive long-term conditions that are running much more than they could potentially earn in income every year, even if they were healthy enough to work?
 
17Frick
� � � ID: 14224413
� � � Sun, Mar 07, 2010, 12:49
Even if you could save, how many people could save enough for a serious medical problem. My wife is going through breast cancer, our bills have been over 500k, how many people would have that type of money saved before 35?

And she still has to undergo reconstruction surgeries.

Do you consider cars a commodity? That would be the best analogy I have to insurance. Do you want a basic, cover the necessities Geo Metro? Or do you want a fully loaded Bentley? They both do the same basic thing, but price difference is orders of magnitude different.

 
18Boldwin
� � � ID: 421172615
� � � Sun, Mar 07, 2010, 14:52
I'm not fleshing out the details. I am presenting how to get the incentives right so as to lower prices naturally. I'm not saying it can't be done thru insurance, but insurance cannot remain the deep pockets reservoir to which everyone goes as if it were bottomless and not deserving of spending restraint.

A doctor can hand an astronomical bill to an insurance company without a hint of remorse. Not as easy to ruin people's lives who you've known all your life and have to look in the eye.
 
19sarge33rd
� � � ID: 280311620
� � � Sun, Mar 07, 2010, 18:08
negotiate with the health care providers??? roflmao Have you ever talked to a nurse, about the commonly called "god complex" which pervades the Doctor community?

Let's see, you need nuero-surgery. You gonna go with the lowest bidder to poke around inside your noggin with a sharp instrument?
 
20Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Sun, Mar 07, 2010, 18:13
A good article which talks to some of the points Baldwin is bringing up.

The big point, IMO, is the disconnect between cost and effect.
 
21WiddleAvi
� � � ID: 32559
� � � Sun, Mar 07, 2010, 19:57
I wish as a consumer I could pay the same rates as insurance companies. There was a point that I had no insurance and tried negotiating the price and did not get much off. Now that I have insurance I see what the bill is and what the insurance company pays and it's not close.
 
22Boldwin
� � � ID: 53228720
� � � Sun, Mar 07, 2010, 21:37
My mother-in-law had a serious stroke when my future wife was 8 yrs old. Strokes were very poorly understood at the time. Loretta's parents were poor. The doctor basically treated her as best he could. He looked in on her almost for free. Maybe my father-in-law's boss chipped in some in secret.

There was a very different relationship between doctors and patients before insurance screwed it up.
 
23biliruben
� � � ID: 16105237
� � � Sun, Mar 07, 2010, 22:35
I agree with you there. Burn 'em down.
 
24Mith
� � � ID: 58136177
� � � Mon, Mar 08, 2010, 07:49
Technology had a hand, too.
 
25Frick
� � � ID: 723887
� � � Mon, Mar 08, 2010, 08:38
Is the problem there is no connection between price and effect or we already have a defacto socialist system? I say defacto because hospitals charge as much as possible to cover their costs. The costs are then negotiated down by the insurance companies, but not on a rational basis IMO.

When we were discussing my wife's treatment plan with the oncologist we had the option of nothing, chemo, radiation or both chemo and radiation. Chemo was the most effective treatment and radiation fairly close behind. Both together were were not a that much more effective. The odds of people in similar cases said that 75% of people would survive with chemo, but 76% would survive with chemo and radiation.

She ended up having both chemo and radiation because she couldn't sleep at night knowing that she didn't do everything possible for our 3 children (ages 1, 3 and 5 at the time). The cost to us we in essence 0. But, there is the downside that radiation will most likely shorten your life. How much shorter? No clue, but she had to have tests done to measure the effectiveness of her heart and lungs before, during and after the radiation.

As the article stated, where do you draw the line?

The more basic question that no one wants to ask is, when do say enough is enough? Should a person be entitled to $1M in treatment to keep them alive for another 24 hours? That's extreme, but where is the threshhold?

How much of our medical expenditures come in the last 5 years of a person's life?
 
26biliruben
� � � ID: 16105237
� � � Mon, Mar 08, 2010, 09:31
How much of our medical expenditures come in the last 5 years of a person's life?

Most, though I don't have hard numbers.
 
27Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Mon, Mar 08, 2010, 20:14
Palin: "We used to hustle across the border for health care we received in Canada"

The woman with the largest irony deficit ever known...
 
28Boldwin
� � � ID: 53228720
� � � Mon, Mar 08, 2010, 22:50

Yeah, right. Someone from a tiny wilderness town goes to the only hospital nearby.

This is very different from a high Canadian official going across border for healthcare he denies his own people.
 
29Razor
� � � ID: 571022618
� � � Mon, Mar 08, 2010, 22:54
So does it stand to reason that some Americans might venture into Mexico for health care?
 
30Boldwin
� � � ID: 53228720
� � � Mon, Mar 08, 2010, 22:59
For alternative care.
 
31Pancho Villa
� � � ID: 29118157
� � � Mon, Mar 08, 2010, 23:11
Palin was 6, like she had any say in it. It's like indicting Obama as a dedicated Muslim because his parents sent him to public school in Indonesia at six, or indicting Soros as a Nazi collaborator when he was 12.
 
32Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Tue, Mar 09, 2010, 00:36
Or indicting Obama because Soros was a Nazi collaborator.
 
33bibA
� � � ID: 27210911
� � � Tue, Mar 09, 2010, 12:11
Razor - Actually many do in fact venture into Mexico for various types of medical care. I have talked with a lot who go, some for treatment that is not approved in the US, some for less expensive doctor bills, some who feel they get good care there, and some for medicine that is either inexpensive, or just easier to get hold of there.

Personally, I don't need anything from elsewhere, but I am a hermit anyway. Don't travel much beyond a 5 mile limit.
 
34Richard
� � � Dude
� � � ID: 204252420
� � � Tue, Mar 09, 2010, 13:53
Razor (#29) not just Americans and not just Mexico. There's a worldwide Medical Tourism industry which folks can use to get cheaper, quicker and maybe, even better, care than they can get at home. Of course, depending on where you are traveling from and where you are going to for care can dramatically increase the risk you face during a secific medical treatment.

The last time I went thru Singapore on a business trip to Indonesia, there were a lot of medical centers in Singapore that were trying to attract medical tourists.

Medical Tourism
 
35Boldwin
� � � ID: 53228720
� � � Tue, Mar 09, 2010, 13:57
India is also very attractive for this purpose. At least as long as the currency exchange rate stays the way it is. As soon as China stops buying T-bills that door will close.
 
36Tree
� � � ID: 248472317
� � � Tue, Mar 09, 2010, 14:00
i now have extra incentive to see health care reform passed.

Limbaugh vows to flee the country if health care passes.

I�ll just tell you this, if this passes and it�s five years from now and all that stuff gets implemented � I am leaving the country. I�ll go to Costa Rica.

don't let the door hit your ass on the way out, you hate-spewing, fear-mongering, anti-American piece of crap.
 
37biliruben
� � � ID: 461142511
� � � Tue, Mar 09, 2010, 14:11
The irony is that Costa Rica has universal health care.
 
38Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Tue, Mar 09, 2010, 14:12
As soon as China stops buying T-bills that door will close.

Maybe. But so long as their currency is pegged to the US dollar (which it is) I think China will continue to use T-bills as safe places to make some money.

The biggest holder of T-bills is Japan, btw. And the UK isn't so far behind.
 
39walk
� � � Dude
� � � ID: 32928238
� � � Tue, Mar 09, 2010, 16:16
#37...too funny. I am sure Olbermann will be on that one tonight. As if universal healthcare is un-American? I don't understand that. Instead, we should not pass it, and let thousands more die, or thousands of others go bankrupt, cos they could not get insurance...that's American!
 
40J-Bar
� � � ID: 30220921
� � � Tue, Mar 09, 2010, 22:21
I thought the American way was to take care of yourself and your family to the best of your ability. Self reliance being a goal as opposed to a hope, independence being the normal thought as opposed to dependence, hard work and work ethic instead of hardly working with no ethic. And if and when life throws you a 12-6 curve ball the safety net is there to assist you and your family to right the ship and resume your journey independently. I believe and have said before that the debate is just about the size of the safety net.
 
41Razor
� � � ID: 571022618
� � � Tue, Mar 09, 2010, 22:43
The health care debate is more than just about universal health care. It's about bringing efficiency to an incredibly inefficient, incredibly large portion of our economy. Universal coverage is both a benefit and an enabling factor.
 
42Boldwin
� � � ID: 53228720
� � � Wed, Mar 10, 2010, 16:57
PD

Do more research on that one. China has already rattled the sabres when it comes to divesting dollars.
 
43Boldwin
� � � ID: 53228720
� � � Wed, Mar 10, 2010, 16:59
And Japan is #2 behind China.
 
44Boldwin
� � � ID: 53228720
� � � Wed, Mar 10, 2010, 17:12
You've got to be kidding me! Bili got his Star Wars scroll!

Here are some pretty interesting wrinkles.
 
45Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Wed, Mar 10, 2010, 17:51
Seriously--I should do research that China won't dump dollars??

How much clearer to I have to be? China owns billions of dollars in t-bills and have their currency pegged to the US dollar. Either one of these facts are enough to demonstrate it isn't in China's best interest to destroy the US economy. Yet you allege that they will do so, and it is up to me to research this more?

Are you logging in from wi-fi spots in the alley?
 
46Pancho Villa
� � � ID: 29118157
� � � Wed, Mar 10, 2010, 18:11
China to build cars in US

Chinese car maker BYD Co. may build an assembly plant and open its North American headquarters in Los Angeles County, according to a report Tuesday.

The Los Angeles Business Journal, citing unnamed sources, reported that the BYD plant could top 1 million square feet in size and create hundreds of jobs.
An announcement on the location of the company headquarters could come within the next few months, while any decision on an assembly plant would follow, according to the report.

A representative for BYD did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The Chinese auto maker displayed its e6 electric crossover at the Detroit auto show in January, and said it planned to start selling the car in the U.S. some time in the second half of the year


China wants our economy strong and our consumers consuming.
 
47biliruben
� � � ID: 16105237
� � � Wed, Mar 10, 2010, 19:31
Krugman wieghs in.

But now ask the question: what would the effect be if China decided to sell a chunk of its Treasury bill holdings and put them in other currencies? The answer is that China would, in effect, be engaging in quantitative easing on behalf of the Fed. The Chinese would be doing us a favor! (And doing the Europeans and Japanese a lot of harm.)

Conversely, by continuing to buy dollars, the Chinese are in effect undermining part of the Fed�s efforts � they�re conducting quantitative diseasing, I guess you could say, hence the title of this post.

The point is that right now the United States has nothing to fear from Chinese threats to diversify out of the dollar. On the contrary, if the Chinese do decide to start selling dollars, Tim Geithner and Ben Bernanke should send them a nice thank-you note.
 
48biliruben
� � � ID: 16105237
� � � Wed, Mar 10, 2010, 19:42
More on-topic - The Medical is Political.

Here are some excerpts from what this influential conservative wrote (I have taken the liberty of bolding the most important lines):

�The president will lobby intensively for his plan. It will surely be the central theme of his State of the Union Address in January. Health care reform remains popular in principle. And the Democratic Party has the votes�

�Any Republican urge to negotiate a �least bad� compromise with the Democrats, and thereby gain momentary public credit for helping the president �do something� about health care, should also be resisted. Passage of the Obama health care plan, in any form, would guarantee and likely make permanent an unprecedented federal intrusion into and disruption of the American economy�and the establishment of the largest federal entitlement program since Social Security. Its success would signal a rebirth of centralized welfare-state policy at the very moment we have begun rolling back that idea in other areas�

�But the Obama proposal is also a serious political threat to the Republican Party. Republicans must therefore clearly understand the political strategy implicit in the Obama plan�and then adopt an aggressive and uncompromising counterstrategy designed to delegitimize the proposal and defeat its partisan purpose�

�If an Obama health care plan succeeds without principled Republican opposition� its passage in the short run will do nothing to hurt (and everything to help) Democratic electoral prospects in 2012. But the long-term political effects of a successful Obama health care bill will be even worse�much worse. It will relegitimize middle-class dependence for �security� on government spending and regulation. It will revive the reputation of the party that spends and regulates, the Democrats, as the generous protector of middle-class interests. And it will at the same time strike a punishing blow against Republican claims to defend the middle class by restraining government.�


It�s revealing stuff: We better stop health care reform because, if the Democrats pass it, the middle class is going to like it, and our anti-government ideology will be discredited. I couldn�t agree more.

Okay, now that you�ve read the above, I have to confess to a lie. The above excerpt is authentic, except for the fact that I have changed the word �Clinton� to �Obama� and �1996� to �2012.�The excerpts above come from a famous � perhaps infamous � call to arms written by conservative operative Bill Kristol in 1993 when Bill and Hillary were pushing their failed effort to reform health care.
 
49sarge33rd
� � � ID: 280311620
� � � Wed, Mar 10, 2010, 22:02
Seems to say, the Reps think it's actually a good idea, just not THEIR good idea and thus it must be opposed.

Shameful.
 
50Boldwin
� � � ID: 53228720
� � � Thu, Mar 11, 2010, 11:49
You guys are deaf, dumb and blind.

Taking away someone's ability to function independently and making them permanent dependents does not mean they like dependency. It means they no longer know how or have the means to live independently.

If Obama breaks our kneecaps and hands us a cane...taxes us to death and then doles our money back to us, people forget how to walk without a cane. They don't know what they would do without a cane. That's not the same as loving being a cripple and it doesn't mean walking with a cane is superior to having healthy legs.
 
51walk
� � � Dude
� � � ID: 32928238
� � � Thu, Mar 11, 2010, 11:54
I don't see how adding a check and balance to the wildly profit-minded healthcare industry makes people dependent. It's a contradiction to try and make maximum money on other peoples' health. It also does not work for a great many people.
 
52Tree
� � � ID: 248472317
� � � Thu, Mar 11, 2010, 11:58
If

and that's the key word right there that you refuse to include in anything you say. For you, it's not an "if", it's a "now", even if there is nothing rational to indicate that anything you claim to have happened or claim will happened.
 
53Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Thu, Mar 11, 2010, 12:07
Lot of if's there, I agree.

Once again, black = white in this criticism.
 
54DWetzel at work
� � � ID: 49962710
� � � Thu, Mar 11, 2010, 12:13
"You guys are deaf, dumb and blind."

At the risk of being a nit, perhaps we're slipping just a wee bit from our civility guidelines here if we allow this?
 
55Mith
� � � ID: 58136177
� � � Thu, Mar 11, 2010, 12:15
I think he's fine.
 
56sarge33rd
� � � ID: 280311620
� � � Thu, Mar 11, 2010, 12:26
Boldwin...Our "legs" (the current health care system/methodologies), are NOT healthy!

People go without getting a diagnosis despite being symptomatic because they can not afford to pay for the testing, let alone the treatment.

Thats the here and now of our system.

People go without insurance at all, because it is a choice between having insurance in case you get ill, or having food in case you get hungry.

Thats the here and now of our system.

People, even WITH exceptional insurance, go bankrupt because of non-covered medical expenses associated with a long-term condition.

Thats the here and now of our system.


The "legs", are broken. Compound fracture. Not enough pins and screws IN the hospital to fix them.

SOMETHING has to change. And if it takes the Feds to change it; then so be it.

FACT: MOST modern nations have one form or another of *ahem* "socialized" medicine/healthcare. MOST, are not "communist" governments.

It's high time, this country did something FOR the people, vs TO the people.

And before you trot out your "free market" BS, let me remind you that it was your "free market" which led to our current economic woes as a country. Lack of proper regulation, lack of integrity and unrestrained pursuit of the almighty dollar by those who already had MILLIONS; caused our current woes.
 
57biliruben
� � � ID: 461142511
� � � Thu, Mar 11, 2010, 14:32
I've never seen nor read of Marxism functioning successfully in practice, so maybe I'm just not able to recognize it when I see it.

Could you define Marxism, and point out how we are becoming a Marxist state, big B? All I see where ever I turn is hyper-capitalism, but maybe I'm looking in the wrong place and I simply need the clear evidence that we are, in fact living in a marxist state pointed out to me.
 
58walk
� � � Dude
� � � ID: 32928238
� � � Thu, Mar 11, 2010, 15:47
#56, sarge! Awesome. What he said...on all counts!
 
59walk
� � � Dude
� � � ID: 32928238
� � � Thu, Mar 11, 2010, 15:50
It's fear of Marxism, bili, fear. Cos that is Obama's agenda. He was born in communist Kenya, the son of former KGB agents, and he has never, not once, stopped his ambition from actualizing his ideals of creating a communist state in the Americas, so can go back to Kenya, and say: "see, if I can make it there, I can make it anywhere! It's up to you, Ken-ya, Ken-yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!"
 
60biliruben
� � � ID: 461142511
� � � Thu, Mar 11, 2010, 16:04
He he.

Stop joking around. Nobody would believe that.

Would they?
 
61J-Bar
� � � ID: 372481117
� � � Thu, Mar 11, 2010, 18:49
Hey Sarge, could you please tell me the story about how your insurance sucks because you had to wait all day to be seen? I like that story.
 
62sarge33rd
� � � ID: 280311620
� � � Thu, Mar 11, 2010, 20:03
VA is, and has for a VERY long time; been grossly underfunded. Underfunded, by definition means under-staffed. Under staffed, means you wait.

In any case, waiting all day, trumps the hell out of not being able to see a doctor at all.
 
63J-Bar
� � � ID: 372481117
� � � Thu, Mar 11, 2010, 21:38
That's not the story you told before. I want the one that ends with you never going back.
 
64Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Thu, Mar 11, 2010, 21:39
The only way that will happen is if they move the VA into a Wal-Mart.
 
65J-Bar
� � � ID: 372481117
� � � Thu, Mar 11, 2010, 21:42
LMAO
 
66J-Bar
� � � ID: 372481117
� � � Thu, Mar 11, 2010, 22:15
re 62: And somehow you want government to fix all of health care when it cannot even make the VA work efficiently.
 
67Razor
� � � ID: 571022618
� � � Thu, Mar 11, 2010, 22:41
Who says the VA is not efficient? There are a lot of efficiencies that the VA has that I wish the private sector had. Electronic records for one. Negotiated rates on prescription drugs that drive costs way down.
 
68J-Bar
� � � ID: 372481117
� � � Thu, Mar 11, 2010, 22:42
Your buddy Sarge
 
69sarge33rd
� � � ID: 280311620
� � � Fri, Mar 12, 2010, 07:44
I said was under-funded. Let's fund properly for the health care of our troops, and THEN compare VA to a fully funded insurance program as they stand now; and see which provides for better care.

#64...Is spot on correct. lmao
 
70walk
� � � Dude
� � � ID: 32928238
� � � Fri, Mar 12, 2010, 11:20
re: 66, are you suggesting that because the gov't cannot make the VA work efficiently that the gov't should not try and fix healthcare?
 
71Razor
� � � ID: 57854118
� � � Fri, Mar 12, 2010, 11:35
First, I think he needs to make a case that the VA is inefficient. And then another case needs to be made that because the VA is inefficient, the government cannot or should not regulate health insurance companies. The first is a big leap; the second is a gigantic, Baldwin-esque leap.
 
72Tree
� � � ID: 248472317
� � � Fri, Mar 12, 2010, 12:27
and Rush clarifies his Costa Rica comments...

On Tuesday, Mr. Limbaugh clarified his comment about leaving the United States, after �the liberal media� celebrated his vow of self-imposed exile, viewing healthcare reform as a way to rid themselves of the conservative talk show host.

�If I have to get thrown into this massive government health care insurance business and end up going to the driver's license office every day when I need to go to the doctor, yeah, I'll go to Costa Rica for treatment, not move there,� he told listeners Tuesday, according to a transcript on his website.
 
73Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Fri, Mar 12, 2010, 13:36
The VA argument is a red herring. The health care proposals are nothing like the VA system, in which the government runs the hospitals, hires the doctors, etc.
 
74J-Bar
� � � ID: 582121218
� � � Fri, Mar 12, 2010, 19:14
I hope I get this right. One person feels the VA is an efficient health care system and another is stating it is under-funded and wouldn't go to a VA hospital, unless it was the ONLY chance for him to survive. Let's just say both are correct, may be the first of its kind, an efficiently run under-funded government entity. No red herring i was not comparing the 2 on their policies just the administrator of both.

If this is all about insuring the uninsured and few insurance reforms. The bill could be about 25 pages. We currently have county hospitals, Va hospitals, and indigent health care programs all around this country. Let the feds derive an assignment for procedures chart (copy BCBS's) and if the person meets the uninsured criteria (i.e. not eligible for current government run insurance) then allow the counties and states to bill the feds. The stipulation is they have to use these hospitals and clinics unless it is an emergency at which time they are stable they will be transferred to the closest facility in the network. Also we include tort reform, portability, preexisting regs.
 
75J-Bar
� � � ID: 582121218
� � � Fri, Mar 12, 2010, 19:49
This is not anything I have read it is just my opinion. Please don't ask me to source the plan.
 
76biliruben
� � � ID: 461142511
� � � Fri, Mar 12, 2010, 19:52
Uh, that could have gone without saying. ;)
 
77J-Bar
� � � ID: 582121218
� � � Fri, Mar 12, 2010, 19:57
But it was coming!!!
 
78sarge33rd
� � � ID: 280311620
� � � Fri, Mar 12, 2010, 20:29
J-Bar...read #73 please.
 
79Nuclear Gophers
� � � ID: 7115138
� � � Sat, Mar 13, 2010, 06:11
Very interesting article. The 5th paragraph is very disturbing.

Friday, March 12, 2010



�They Just Want This Over� [Robert Costa]


Sitting in an airport, on his way home to Michigan, Rep. Bart Stupak, a pro-life Democrat, is chagrined. �They�re ignoring me,� he says, in a phone interview with National Review Online. �That�s their strategy now. The House Democratic leaders think they have the votes to pass the Senate�s health-care bill without us. At this point, there is no doubt that they�ve been able to peel off one or two of my twelve. And even if they don�t have the votes, it�s been made clear to us that they won�t insert our language on the abortion issue.�

According to Stupak, that group of twelve pro-life House Democrats � the �Stupak dozen� � has privately agreed for months to vote �no� on the Senate�s health-care bill if federal funding for abortion is included in the final legislative language. Now, in the debate�s final hours, Stupak says the other eleven are coming under �enormous� political pressure from both the White House and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.). �I am a definite �no� vote,� he says. �I didn�t cave. The others are having both of their arms twisted, and we�re all getting pounded by our traditional Democratic supporters, like unions.�

Stupak says he also doesn�t trust the �Slaughter solution,� a legislative maneuver being bandied about on Capitol Hill as a way to pass the Senate bill in the House without actually voting on it. �Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me,� he says. �I don�t have a warm-and-fuzzy feeling about what I�m hearing.�

Stupak notes that his negotiations with House Democratic leaders in recent days have been revealing. �I really believe that the Democratic leadership is simply unwilling to change its stance,� he says. �Their position says that women, especially those without means available, should have their abortions covered.� The arguments they have made to him in recent deliberations, he adds, �are a pretty sad commentary on the state of the Democratic party.�

What are Democratic leaders saying? �If you pass the Stupak amendment, more children will be born, and therefore it will cost us millions more. That�s one of the arguments I�ve been hearing,� Stupak says. �Money is their hang-up. Is this how we now value life in America? If money is the issue � come on, we can find room in the budget. This is life we�re talking about.�

If Obamacare passes, Stupak says, it could signal the end of any meaningful role for pro-life Democrats within their own party. �It would be very, very hard for someone who is a right-to-life Democrat to run for office,� he says. �I won�t leave the party. I�m more comfortable here and still believe in a role within it for the right-to-life cause, but this bill will make being a pro-life Democrat much more difficult. They don�t even want to debate this issue. We�ll probably have to wait until the Republicans take back the majority to fix this.�

�Throughout this debate, even when the House leaders have acknowledged us, it�s always been in a backhanded way,� he laments. �I�m telling the others to hold firm, and we�ll meet next week, but I�m disappointed in my colleagues who said they�d be with us and now they�re not. It�s almost like some right-to-life members don�t want to be bothered. They just want this over.�

And the politics of the issue are pretty rough. �This has really reached an unhealthy stage,� Stupak says. �People are threatening ethics complaints on me. On the left, they�re really stepping it up. Every day, from Rachel Maddow to the Daily Kos, it keeps coming. Does it bother me? Sure. Does it change my position? No.�


 
80biliruben
� � � ID: 16105237
� � � Sat, Mar 13, 2010, 06:50
I don't believe the money argument is serious.

The reality is, even if they did want to throw women under the bus, I don't think they can change that sort of language under reconciliation.

I damn well hope they are coming under a lot of pressure. This is politics, and I want them to get as mean as they have to be to get this done for the good of the American people.

 
81sarge33rd
� � � ID: 280311620
� � � Sat, Mar 13, 2010, 09:32
I damn well hope they are coming under a lot of pressure. This is politics, and I want them to get as mean as they have to be to get this done for the good of the American people.

Amen Brother Bili.
 
82Nuclear Gophers
� � � ID: 7115138
� � � Sun, Mar 14, 2010, 07:37
Well it looks like they are going to get mean, because if they had the votes they would have voted for it by now.
 
83Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Sun, Mar 14, 2010, 12:25
Stupak has a bit of a martyr complex. Many pro-lifers in Congress do. I admire what he did, to try to clarify in the new bill what is already the law with regard to taxpayer money being used for abortions. But his amendment doesn't actually change anything in the law, and holding out on the health care bill is just crazy talk. Particularly when you blame it on everyone else.
 
84Frick
� � � ID: 723887
� � � Sun, Mar 14, 2010, 13:10
There is a significant difference between thinking that abortion is wrong and thinking it should be illegal. Why does funding for abortion have to be included in the bill?
 
85Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Sun, Mar 14, 2010, 13:28
It isn't. That's 's why the Stupak Amendment is superfluous.
 
86Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Sun, Mar 14, 2010, 16:22
Some of the Dems that are leaning toward a "no" vote this time around, including Stupak.
 
87Boldwin
� � � ID: 53228720
� � � Sun, Mar 14, 2010, 22:32
�People are threatening ethics complaints on me."

That's the new disturbing part. That they want to save a buck by thinning the herd is the old disturbing part.
 
88Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Sun, Mar 14, 2010, 22:37
Jeez. You believe every bad unfounded rumor against Democrats, but disbelieve anything against Republicans (or, dismiss it with a "they do it too!" defense)?

 
89Boldwin
� � � ID: 53228720
� � � Sun, Mar 14, 2010, 22:53
RE: PD's link, you can cross Gutierez off that list. He's just grandstanding. Long experience watching him says he is the Jesse Jackson of the hispanic radicals doing whatever it takes to make sure he is seen as widely as possible as the loudest and most radical [and in his dreams most credible] hispanic voice. Add a touch of Rahm Emanuel to that cocktail.
 
90Boldwin
� � � ID: 53228720
� � � Sun, Mar 14, 2010, 22:55
Be honest PD. Do you really doubt that Stupak received threats along those lines after the timing of the Massa affair?
 
91Building 7
� � � ID: 526218
� � � Sun, Mar 14, 2010, 23:14
What evidence do you have that people are not threatening ethics complaints on Stupak.

The democrat (Stupak) cannot be relied upon to tell the truth. Any statement he makes should be treated as an unfounded rumor. Does that go for all democrats?
 
92Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Mon, Mar 15, 2010, 00:22
Well, that's got the rules of evidence exactly backwards.

Stupak has always been a whiner--using his pro-life stance to complain about all sorts of people (and this is a good example here). He offers no names. No ethics charges have, in fact, been filed. He only names a blogger and CNN host (both far lefties)--what a surprise! Of course those people will criticize the guy for not passing health care.
 
93sarge33rd
� � � ID: 280311620
� � � Mon, Mar 15, 2010, 00:51
What evidence do you have that people are not threatening ethics complaints on Stupak.

Say what?

What evidence do YOU have, that:

1) GWB wasn't selling crack while sitting in the WH as Pres?

2) OBL wasn't on the CIA payroll?

or insert wild-ass unfounded charge here, against any name here.

PD is right, your question is straight up bassackwards.
 
94Boldwin
� � � ID: 53228720
� � � Mon, Mar 15, 2010, 03:12
Yeah, the idea that Rahm Emanuel would twist every arm till they snapped, physically intimidate men in congressional showers and then use gay blackmail against them...what was I thinking? That could never happen. He doesn't want this so badly that he would sink so low.

 
95J-Bar
� � � ID: 562521619
� � � Tue, Mar 16, 2010, 20:52
I am having trouble with the logic. If the source is the man himself he is a whiner but if it was an unnamed source from wherever and a NYT reporter wrote an article about it then it would start a thread and be discussed.
 
96Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Tue, Mar 16, 2010, 20:55
So which is is, Boldwin: Democrats are weenies who don't stand up for anything, or they are strong arm thugs who won't let people stand in the way of what they want?

The source is clearly Massa himself, who admitted to everything. I think the Far Right is extremely disappointed this didn't turn out to the another black eye for the Administration.
 
97Boldwin
� � � ID: 53228720
� � � Tue, Mar 16, 2010, 22:10
Obama won't let anyone stand in the way of the marxist destruction of this country..
 
98Boldwin
� � � ID: 53228720
� � � Tue, Mar 16, 2010, 22:27
The source is clearly Massa himself

But the timing is 100% Rahm Emanuel. I'm curious when Barney Frank's time ever comes.
 
99Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Tue, Mar 16, 2010, 22:30
"But the timing..."

What are you talking about? Other than the timing of your hopes for more dirt about the Administration.

Meanwhile, just like in the 90's, the Far Right will scream as they are dragged into economic prosperity...
 
100Boldwin
� � � ID: 53228720
� � � Wed, Mar 17, 2010, 01:46
The massive boom was started by Reagan and preserved by Clinton losing congress the very next election cycle after he was elected.

How many times must we remind people who controls the purse strings?
 
101Boldwin
� � � ID: 53228720
� � � Wed, Mar 17, 2010, 01:50
"But the timing..."

What are you talking about?


You think this came to a head right now by accident? That's not what Massa is saying.
 
102Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Wed, Mar 17, 2010, 01:53
Massa said he was retiring for health reasons. Then he said he was pressured by the White House. Then he admitted to tickling men on the floor on his 50th birthday and giving massages to his men in his command in the Navy.

You've sunk to grasping at rumors from closeted gay men who can't stick to a story to slap at the White House now.
 
103Boldwin
� � � ID: 53228720
� � � Wed, Mar 17, 2010, 01:59
Sunk nothing. This is as obvious as the nose on your face.
 
104Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Wed, Mar 17, 2010, 02:04
The only thing that is obvious in this case is that you are waiting for the spinning rumor machine to pass by a rumor you like, then you quickly snatch it up and pass it along.

The fact that Massa took back what he said about the White House, in most people's minds, would make the rumor unpalatable. But that appears not to have slowed you in the least.

Even Beck had the decency to tell his audience that he wasted their time by having Massa on his show.
 
105Boldwin
� � � ID: 53228720
� � � Wed, Mar 17, 2010, 09:20
Beck apologized because Massa kept agreeing to spill the beans on corruption and failing to do so. I watched the entire show and there is no question that the Emanuel shower scene threat and the timing of the outting were connected to the HCR bill.
 
106Boldwin
� � � ID: 53228720
� � � Wed, Mar 17, 2010, 09:23
In fact he even accused the administration with leaks timed for the Beck appearance.
 
107Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Wed, Mar 17, 2010, 10:59
And he never came through, did he? I realize that for a few seconds Massa's spin machine coincided with your own, but he's long moved on. And good riddance. If you are looking for Massa to back up whatever mischaracterizations you have about the White House, good luck.

Meanwhile, Dennis Kucinich looks to have been convinced to back the health care bill, after heavy lobbying by the White House and intense feedback from his constituents in Cleveland, who overwhelmingly wanted him to vote "yes" on the bill.
 
108Mattinglyinthehall
� � � ID: 37838313
� � � Wed, Mar 17, 2010, 11:18
The GOP/FNC talking point that Americans remain steadfastly against HCR has been less and less true since the end of January.

Here's the moving poll average:
 
109Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Wed, Mar 17, 2010, 11:21
Take out Rasmussen (who has been an outlier on this issue for many months) and it looks even better for reform.
 
110Mattinglyinthehall
� � � ID: 37838313
� � � Wed, Mar 17, 2010, 11:23
I can't post the user-altered moving averages but when you eliminate outliers Rasmussen and YouGov/Polimetrix, it becomes 46.8 oppose and 42.2 favor.
 
111Mattinglyinthehall
� � � ID: 37838313
� � � Wed, Mar 17, 2010, 11:38
The moving Rasmussen average clearly does not reflect the overall trend. There's a bug in their embed code for customized tables but
I believe I can link it.
 
112Boldwin
� � � ID: 53228720
� � � Wed, Mar 17, 2010, 11:52
I believe the movement on both sides is attributable to the single-payer issue.

The hard-liners who thot they'd never accept it without SP are absorbing the pragmatic outlook that at this rate they'll get there soon and that they at least need this half-measure to keep momentum in their favor.

The opposed but not fully informed, having seen SP pulled off the table, have lost one of the high visibility causes of anxiety.
 
113Mattinglyinthehall
� � � ID: 37838313
� � � Wed, Mar 17, 2010, 12:10
Some other reasons for reduced anxiety among the opposition:

abortions won't be funded
illegals won't be insured
there's no public option
end-of-life consultations won't be covered (for those who were suckered by that filthy bitch's death-panel lie).
 
114Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Wed, Mar 17, 2010, 13:08
I believe the Catholic Bishops are still going to put out a "stop" request on the bill because of the lack of the Stupak amendment in the Senate version, but as I (and many others) have pointed out, the amendment is redundant.

Commonweal with a bit of common sense on the issue.
 
115Mattinglyinthehall
� � � ID: 37838313
� � � Wed, Mar 17, 2010, 13:20
A wrinkled, kneeling man holding a stick crawled up to a group opposing the effort with a sign saying he's "got Parkinson's" and needs help.

"If you're looking for a handout you're in the wrong end of town," one man yelled at him. "Nothing for free over here, you have to work for everything you get."

Parkinson's is an incurable and degenerative brain disorder that impairs the victim's speech, motor skills and various other functions.

Another man walked up him and threw a dollar bill at him and said derisively, "I'll pay for this guy, start a pot." Tossing another bill at the sedentary man, he screamed, "No more handouts!"

"You love a communist!" shouted another protester in response.
 
116biliruben
� � � ID: 461142511
� � � Wed, Mar 17, 2010, 13:41
Man. Stupid and heartless. My heroes.
 
117Tree
� � � ID: 248472317
� � � Wed, Mar 17, 2010, 14:01
ah yes, the new American Right. Compassionate Conservatives, the whole lot of them.
 
118sarge33rd
� � � ID: 280311620
� � � Wed, Mar 17, 2010, 14:02
As an avowed Athiest I probably stand to get blasted for even asking this question but;

The Right portrays themselves as "those of moral character and Christian attitude". So where in that story linked by MITH, is the adage "There but by the grace of God go I...", born out proven by those on the Right?
 
119biliruben
� � � ID: 461142511
� � � Wed, Mar 17, 2010, 14:45
Tea-partiers aren't necessarily Christian Sarge.

The hard-core ones, they are clearly worshiping something tinged with the essence of evil.
 
120sarge33rd
� � � ID: 280311620
� � � Wed, Mar 17, 2010, 15:21
*raises hand* Oh I know bili, I know that one...the ALMIGHTY dollar!!!!~
 
121Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Wed, Mar 17, 2010, 15:23
[I think he was referring to Beck. But $ is a good answer, too]

:)
 
122Mattinglyinthehall
� � � ID: 37838313
� � � Wed, Mar 17, 2010, 15:26
He said tinged, PD. Not saturated.
 
123sarge33rd
� � � ID: 280311620
� � � Wed, Mar 17, 2010, 16:07
<---prefers his TV/radio personalities to be poly-unsaturated
 
124walk
� � � Dude
� � � ID: 32928238
� � � Wed, Mar 17, 2010, 17:33
Belongs in the wtf thread...

A bunch of ignorant, selfish white folk who don't even know that social security and medicare are socialist gov't programs. They'll vote alright, and hopefully the collegians and minorities who are not so minority anymore will also vote again...they will in 2012, but I dunno about 2010. A shame since very little has changed in one year except for some actual intelligence in the white house. Machismo matters more I guess. Idiots rule! (cf. Perry Ferrell).
 
125Boldwin
� � � ID: 53228720
� � � Wed, Mar 17, 2010, 18:55
I'd love to see you guys drive the Magnificent Mile in Chicago. Who wins, the squeegee bums or your wallets? I'm betting on your wallets. Liberals are only charitable with other people's money.
 
126biliruben
� � � ID: 461142511
� � � Wed, Mar 17, 2010, 18:58
Why would you drive the magnificent mile? It's more magnificent if you walk it. And come to think of it, I can't think even one time I've been pan handled on the Magnificent Mile the dozen or so times of walked it.

Certainly nothing in comparison to NYC.
 
127Boldwin
� � � ID: 53228720
� � � Wed, Mar 17, 2010, 19:04
There are more roses to smell where I am going. You waste time on your commute. Have you actually walked the MM? The prospect doesn't appeal to me at all.

Must be a 'vampire casing the rich' thing.
 
128biliruben
� � � ID: 461142511
� � � Wed, Mar 17, 2010, 19:08
I walk it nearly every time I'm in Chicago. I like people, and love to people watch. One of the few places there is diversity in the Midwest. I'll refrain from speculating why you dislike it.

Anyone who commutes via car in Chicago should have their head examined.
 
129Boldwin
� � � ID: 53228720
� � � Wed, Mar 17, 2010, 20:26
If you have the idle time, good for you.
 
130biliruben
� � � ID: 461142511
� � � Wed, Mar 17, 2010, 20:30
I'd rather sit on the el reading than sitting in dead-stopped traffic fuming and increasing my blood pressure.
 
131Tree
� � � ID: 248472317
� � � Wed, Mar 17, 2010, 20:38
i've been to Chicago enough times to know it's not a city i want to drive in. i'm pretty sure traffic jams were not invented there, but perfected there as well.
 
132Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Wed, Mar 17, 2010, 21:45
I love walking around Chicago. Spent a week there last February at a conference, and (for once) it was great weather. The conference was at the Hilton downtown, which was a great place to start any number of walking tours.
 
133Boldwin
� � � ID: 53228720
� � � Wed, Mar 17, 2010, 21:58
If your goal is sightseeing, there are ziggurats and eye-candy aplenty. If you want to get from one place to another it's a toss-up depending on whether your start and endpoint have any coorelation with the transit system.

The effect on bloodpressure from traffic is a legitimate issue. The parking is insane. The highways are magificent if it isn't rush hour or they aren't tollways.

Chicago has taken to selling things for long terms like highways and parking meters and utilities to private companies to solve short term budget crunches so enjoy it while it's still free to look.
 
134Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Thu, Mar 18, 2010, 12:05
"You're HIV positive. We're canceling your coverage."

The hellishness that is health insurance company "customer service" needs to be spotlighted. Without reform, dropping people when they are sick (and without resources to fight for their coverage) has become commonplace--even a matter of policy in some companies.
 
135Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Thu, Mar 18, 2010, 12:28
The Catholic Health Association is on board with the bill.
 
136Richard
� � � Dude
� � � ID: 204252420
� � � Thu, Mar 18, 2010, 15:12
Interesting numbers out there in the most recent CBO estimate (dare I say guess-timate)on the cost of providing insurance to ~30 million Americans who don't have insurance today. See CBO Estimate

from Table 2 - we can provided insurance for ~30 million folks at a 10-year cost of $940 billion. That works out to $3,100/year for each person. The per year cost goes up if you factor in the fact that the insurance benefit doesn't kick into until 2014. Call it ~$5,200/year per person for 6 years of coverage.

Of course, that gross cost will be reduced when the penalties and excise taxes on folks and companies who don't get with the program are collected.

However, I was just curious on what type of insurance coverage these folks will get. I know what I get from my employer. My current coverage currently costs ~$13,800/year (luckily my employer picks up 80% of the cost). I've got a $600 deductible and my coverage is great as long as I don't get sick. I wonder what type of coverage I'd have for less than half the price.

Any ideas on what type of coverage we will be providing these ~30 million poor souls who don't have medical insurance today?
 
137sarge33rd
� � � ID: 280311620
� � � Thu, Mar 18, 2010, 15:20
At my last employer, coverage for two of us was gonna run me in excess of $13k/yr, with a 1k deductible and a 70/30 co-pay. I opted out.

ANY coverage, is superior to none; and thats what too many of us have atm.
 
138Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Thu, Mar 18, 2010, 15:24
You're conflated two different things: Your cost for insurance and the gross cost for the government to set up an exchange and do all the other things that the bill does divided by the number of newly-insured.

Those people who buy insurance on the Exchange (whether individuals or small businesses) will have to pay premiums to the insurance companies. Those premiums will depend upon what type of insurance they are getting, benefit amounts, etc. While there is no reason to thing that the premium amounts won't be close to what is being paid now by people buying similar insurance (maybe a little less), those premiums are not being paid by the government. They will be paid by the people purchasing that insurance product.
 
139Richard
� � � Dude
� � � ID: 204252420
� � � Thu, Mar 18, 2010, 18:56
Your right, Perm Dude (#138). A closer reading of the CBO cost estimate shows that the $5-6,000/year per person is the estimate of the subsidy that will be paid to help the currently un-insured buy health insurance. Premiums will still be paid by individuals to the insurance companies with the Federal Gov (us) helping out with a portion of the cost. I wonder what Sarge will be buying when 2014 rolls around and what coverage he'll get for the money spent.

I currently get a $11,100/year subsidy from my employer and I chip in the other $2,700/year out my pocket for the coverage I currently get. I wonder what will be available to me come 2014.
 
140Building 7
� � � ID: 574402017
� � � Thu, Mar 18, 2010, 21:18
I would pay the fine/tax for not buying insurance. Then if I got real sick, I would buy it, and they would have to cover my pre-existing conditions. That's if my Amish-Davidians plan doesn't pan out.
 
141Canadian Hack
� � � ID: 4213318
� � � Thu, Mar 18, 2010, 21:30
B7

What a proud patriotic American you are busy trying to find a way to game the system and screw the rest of your fellow Americans.
 
142Perm Dude
� � � ID: 162351820
� � � Thu, Mar 18, 2010, 21:36
Heh. Keep in mind that the tax is 2.5% of your adjusted gross income above the threshhold limits ($9,350 for singles, $18,700 for couples in 2009).

Per year.


Richard: I wonder what will be available to me come 2014 That's the big question for the vast majority of us who have some form of health insurance. The existence of a large number of new plans accompanied by easier-to-understand information about them should drive down prices (plus, the fact that more people are buying insurance, which helps to spread the risk). But no one really knows.
 
143Building 7
� � � ID: 574402017
� � � Thu, Mar 18, 2010, 22:14
I have insurance at work, hack. So, you can save your altruism. But, if I can figure it out, so can millions of other people.

I thought the penalty was like $900.
 
144Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Thu, Mar 18, 2010, 23:02
I had thought so too, but I ran across the percentage amount when looking up whether the Senate version included the jail time provision that the original House version of the bill had (the Senate one does not have any jail time provision).
 
145Boldwin
� � � ID: 292351810
� � � Fri, Mar 19, 2010, 03:47
What a proud patriotic American you are busy trying to find a way to game the system and screw the rest of your fellow Americans.

This from someone trying to overthrow the country, screw it's citizens and turn it into the USSA.
 
146Frick
� � � ID: 723887
� � � Fri, Mar 19, 2010, 08:28
Anyone have a link that details what type of coverage would be required to avoid jail time (Per the House version)?

There is a huge difference between a major medical policy and health insurance that most people think of.
 
147sarge33rd
� � � ID: 280311620
� � � Fri, Mar 19, 2010, 08:31
re 139; If I had been offered an 11k 'employer subsidy', I'd not have opted out. But in my industry, it is EXTREMELY rare, for an employer to contribute much of anything in the least but 'meaningful'. Far and away, the majority are either covered under their spouses plans from where they work, or they are without. Relatively few, are willing/able to pay 1k/m 'just in case'.
 
148sarge33rd
� � � ID: 280311620
� � � Fri, Mar 19, 2010, 08:34
Heard on the news last night, that several States AGs are preparing a lawsuit vs the Feds, contesting the constitutionality of requiring the citizens to buy ANYTHING.

Let's play devils Advocate for a second and assume the state won such a suit.

Would that then, negate those states ability to require citizens to purchase car insurance? License Plates? Vehicle Registrations?

Just asking.
 
149Frick
� � � ID: 723887
� � � Fri, Mar 19, 2010, 09:11
I can see a distinction. You have to purchase car insurance and a license to use state or locally owned roads. If you don't want to drive on them, you aren't required have either.

The health insurance would be required by everyone, simply by living in the US.

There is an important distinction there.
 
150sarge33rd
� � � ID: 280311620
� � � Fri, Mar 19, 2010, 09:19
Is there? Would the 'requirement' for insurance apply to the unemployed? If not, then one could argue that just as you can go without owning a car, so too can you opt to go without holding a job.
 
151Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Fri, Mar 19, 2010, 09:52
Frick is right (except that it would only apply to citizens, another important distinction).
 
152boikin
� � � ID: 532592112
� � � Fri, Mar 19, 2010, 09:56
Re 140, better yet i am going to sell health insurance for $500 a year it will cover everything but the deductible will be 1 million dollars. It wont matter because if a client gets sick i will suggest a better policy that will cover his illness.

What B7 describes already goes on in the government enployment insurance plans people buy the cheapest plans and then if they get really sick the upgrade to the best plan.
 
153Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Fri, Mar 19, 2010, 10:00
Seems natural enough. People doing the minimum that they have to is the most natural thing in the world.

Boldwin's comment made me literally laugh out loud. He's convinced himself that Democrats are "overthrowing" the government to the point where he rejects their comments as being un-American even to address.

I have tea party friends who are in a tizzy this week (I'm surprised they can even sit down), calling this Obama's "Waterloo." (they are all big into overblown projections).

So what metaphor will they use when this passes into law?
 
154Pancho Villa
� � � ID: 29118157
� � � Fri, Mar 19, 2010, 10:10
So what metaphor will they use when this passes into law?

See post #97
 
155Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Fri, Mar 19, 2010, 10:13
Ah, thanks. "Here comes the USSA!" will be the new chant...
 
156DWetzel
� � � ID: 278201415
� � � Fri, Mar 19, 2010, 10:16
You guys whining about people possibly gaming the system realize that this is essentially what the insurance companies do now, right? Accept low-risk, low-cost probabilities and then when things go sour, try to dump the problem off on somebody else.

Of course, when they do it, it's capitalism and the free market at work. When people try to do it, they're evil scum.
 
157boikin
� � � ID: 532592112
� � � Fri, Mar 19, 2010, 10:24
calling this Obama's "Waterloo."

is obama wellington or napoleon?

Of course, when they do it, it's capitalism and the free market at work. When people try to do it, they're evil scum.

I don't think there is anything wrong with gaming the system. Blame the system not the parts. I am just saying don't complain when the system collapses.
 
158DWetzel
� � � ID: 278201415
� � � Fri, Mar 19, 2010, 10:26
It's collaps(ed)/(ing) now.
 
159boikin
� � � ID: 532592112
� � � Fri, Mar 19, 2010, 10:34
Is it? what percentage Older poll shows that majority of Americans are happy with there health care. I don't think they would say the system is collapsing. If i was to tell you these polls showed some approval ratings of a bill or politician you would be this is one of the most popular blanks of all time.
 
160Pancho Villa
� � � ID: 29118157
� � � Fri, Mar 19, 2010, 10:37
The system will collapse due to the nature of Medicare. My 94 year old aunt fell and broke her pelvis a couple weeks ago. Here Medicare bill in 3 days is more than I've spent on health care in my entire life - 58 years and two teenage kids, excluding the birth of those kids.

As boomers enter the Medicare market and the number of mid 90s folks falling down increases, the collapse of the system is obvious. Baldwin says to address that is promoting killing grandma and thinning the herd. He rails at the thought of rationing as if it's a marxist plot. Yet, he opposes tax increases to continue to provide max coverage for the extremely elderly, and proposes that reforming malpractice insurance will somehow make the whole thing rosy.

 
161DWetzel
� � � ID: 278201415
� � � Fri, Mar 19, 2010, 10:37
Most people are happy with their own social security benefits too, doesn't mean that the current program is sustainable there either.
 
162boikin
� � � ID: 532592112
� � � Fri, Mar 19, 2010, 10:48
but the bill hardly even addresses collapsing medicare system. they are going to save that for another day. I don't think you will get to much arguement from anyone here that medicare is on the verge of collapse but that is not the same as saying the medical system as whole is.
 
163DWetzel
� � � ID: 278201415
� � � Fri, Mar 19, 2010, 10:49
I was referring to the greater medical system, not specifically Medicare.
 
164Pancho Villa
� � � ID: 29118157
� � � Fri, Mar 19, 2010, 10:59
Agreed, DWetz. But you know what the reaction is to any suggestion that Medicare or SS taxes will have to be increased in order to sustain these programs by the tea party types. It will destroy America.

 
165boikin
� � � ID: 532592112
� � � Fri, Mar 19, 2010, 11:09
SS was a failure from day one, there is probably no saving it.
 
166Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Fri, Mar 19, 2010, 11:10
Most of the savings are coming from slowing down the increases in payments over time, and trimming quite a few things from Medicare Advantage (the voluntary program for wealthier seniors).

It isn't a huge amount--something like $50 billion/year (which *seems* like a lot but is only a small amount of what Medicare will pay out).

It is a small first step. Like nudging the ship away from the rocks.
 
167Boldwin
� � � ID: 292351810
� � � Fri, Mar 19, 2010, 11:25
but the bill hardly even addresses collapsing medicare system.

Stripping half a trillion dollars from it is addressing it. Not in a sane way, but it's directly related.
 
168DWetzel
� � � ID: 33337117
� � � Fri, Mar 19, 2010, 13:48
Thought smaller government was good, B?
 
169sarge33rd
� � � ID: 280311620
� � � Fri, Mar 19, 2010, 13:53
1st time I ever saw a right-winger, complain about cutting/reducing an entitlement program.
 
170Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Fri, Mar 19, 2010, 14:07
If they can't vote it down, Republicans are doing what they can to make the bill worse.

Remember: These are the people who claim that, when they hold all the political power, that they would do a better job of running goverment.
 
171Boldwin
� � � ID: 292351810
� � � Fri, Mar 19, 2010, 20:08
What I don't like is that Republicans can limit growth of entitlement programs to @ the cost of living, and the Dem/MSM machine aquires power by portraying Republicans as wanting to kill granny because they didn't allow enuff increase.

Meanwhile Dems can cut half a trillion from Granny's care and insert Ezekiel Emanuel's euthanasia language into the bill which literally kills granny and the Dem/MSM machine portrays Dems as improving healthcare for granny.

Raising the tax burden to cover the extra trillion Obamacare will cost while at the same time cutting benefits by half a trillion is not my idea of smaller government.
 
172Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Fri, Mar 19, 2010, 20:59
Wow, how many lies can one short post make. Let's count, shall we?

-no benefits are being cut for regular Medicare. some Medicare Advantage benefits are being trimmed (the real question you aren't asking: Should benefits be cut?). Nor are any payments to any health care providers cut.

-again, "Granny's care" is not being cut.

-we've covered the "euthanasia language" in depth. Apparently seniors need to pay for end-of-life counseling out-of-pocket for this to go away in your mind. Whatever. Still a lie.

-raising the tax burden makes, literally, no sense. If you mean raising taxes on rents and dividends received by only the wealthiest few percent of Americans then you are right. Too bad for them.

 
173Boldwin
� � � ID: 292351810
� � � Fri, Mar 19, 2010, 21:00
Another thing I don't understand why people are willing to accept...the bill starts the taxes now but the plan starts implimenting four years from now.

And then it tells the CBO to score it as if ten years of income stream and six years of expenses is the cost of the system.

At least I haven't heard the expected intelligence insulting idea that the 4 years of taxes for nothing, are being put in a lockbox. Wait a minute...I guess that was the 'putting it in the kitty' phrase he used.
 
174Boldwin
� � � ID: 292351810
� � � Fri, Mar 19, 2010, 21:21
And since Bili claims to look at the track record...
Overall, the government is inept at predicting healthcare spending. When Medicare was created in 1965, the government estimated that the cost of the program would be $12 billion by the year 1990. In actuality, the program cost $110 billion in 1990, and to date costs $500 billion. Also in 1965, Medicaid was created and was expected to cost $1 billion annually, but has developed into a $250 billion program.

If the CBO estimates are as inaccurate as predicted and this legislation is enacted, the stability of the American economy faces irreparable damage.
Just try and "put that in the kitty"
 
175Boldwin
� � � ID: 292351810
� � � Fri, Mar 19, 2010, 21:26
PD

Half a trillion is a substantial 'trim' in my book.

Euthanasia is replete thruout this plan in the denial and forbidding of services. It's been the life's work of Ezekiel Emanuel.

 
176Nuclear Gophers
� � � ID: 7115138
� � � Sat, Mar 20, 2010, 07:04
It looks like this is really going to destroy companies in the country. But as PD says "to bad for them". Nice.

Dow Jones Newswires | Caterpillar Inc. said the health-care overhaul legislation being considered by the U.S. House of Representatives would increase the company's health-care costs by more than $100 million in the first year alone.

In a letter Thursday to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and House Republican Leader John Boehner of Ohio, Caterpillar urged lawmakers to vote against the plan "because of the substantial cost burdens it would place on our shareholders, employees and retirees."
Caterpillar, the world's largest construction machinery manufacturer by sales, said it's particularly opposed to provisions in the bill that would expand Medicare taxes and mandate insurance coverage. The legislation would require nearly all companies to provide health insurance for their employees or face large fines.

The Peoria-based company said these provisions would increase its insurance costs by at least 20 percent, or more than $100 million, just in the first year of the health-care overhaul program.

"We can ill-afford cost increases that place us at a disadvantage versus our global competitors," said the letter signed by Gregory Folley, vice president and chief human resources officer of Caterpillar. "We are disappointed that efforts at reform have not addressed the cost concerns we've raised throughout the year."

Business executives have long complained that the options offered for covering 32 million uninsured Americans would result in higher insurance costs for those employers that already provide coverage. Opponents have stepped up their attacks in recent days as the House moves closer toward a vote on the Senate version of the health-care legislation.

A letter Thursday to President Barack Obama and members of Congress signed by more than 130 economists predicted the legislation would discourage companies from hiring more workers and would cause reduced hours and wages for those already employed.

Caterpillar noted that the company supports efforts to increase the quality and the value of health care for patients as well as lower costs for employer-sponsored insurance coverage.

"Unfortunately, neither the current legislation in the House and Senate, nor the president's proposal, meets these goals," the letter said.




 
177Boldwin
� � � ID: 292351810
� � � Sat, Mar 20, 2010, 07:41
The legislation would require nearly all companies to provide health insurance for their employees or face large fines

I was not aware of that. I was under the impression that companies were actually incentivised to drop coverage. Earlier versions did that.

This is not good personally. I just had a talk with a customer who said he would close if he was forced to buy insurance.
 
178Nuclear Gophers
� � � ID: 7115138
� � � Sat, Mar 20, 2010, 08:06
177-as PD says "to bad for him"
 
179Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Sat, Mar 20, 2010, 09:59
Don't misquote me, NG. My point was clear: raising the taxes on rents and dividends a few percent on the wealthiest Americans is not a big deal to help cover the rising costs of Medicare.

Baldwin seems to want to both decry the size of Medicare over time while taking the CBO to task for not seeing that government would substantially increase the size and scope of the project--in 1965. This is like asking the car dealer to predict your new car's costs over the next ten years. Then complaining about him 30 years later because your fleet's costs are so much more.

And also complaining of any cuts at all in this program which will bankrupt the country if unchecked. You can't have it both ways.
 
180DWetzel
� � � ID: 33337117
� � � Sat, Mar 20, 2010, 11:11
"Euthanasia is replete thruout this plan in the denial and forbidding of services."

Seriously, WTF is this?

Please get your story straight. Are you mad because they're trying to spend money to provide services to more people, or because services are being denied?


NG--you yourself have said, essentially, "too bad for them" for people who have crippling health problems they can't afford. You'd rather keep it for yourself. You've said so explicity (and frankly, I commend you for your honestly even while I think it's a terrible position). Yet you castigate PD for thinking the same thing about corporations. Where are your priorities?
 
181Nuclear Gophers
� � � ID: 7115138
� � � Sat, Mar 20, 2010, 13:25
If my company is going to lose 100 million dollars because of this health care bill, it would be to the best interest for my bottom line to cut jobs. Seems like a jobs bill going the wrong direction. Now will those people getting laid off, will they get health care under this bill and if so who is going to pay for it? Oh thats right, raising taxes on rents and dividends recieved by the wealthiest few percent of americans. "Too bad for them." Spreading the wealth of the rich to the poor devils who didnt earn it themselves. Time for me to be poor and to get my hand out.
 
182sarge33rd
� � � ID: 280311620
� � � Sat, Mar 20, 2010, 14:06
Spreading the wealth of the rich to the poor devils who didnt earn it themselves.

As opposed to....? Inheriting it from your father? How precisely, is THAT "earning" it?

I get REALLY sic pf hearing people assume that "the poor", are that way because they are either lazy, inept, stupid, or a combination of those three.

Get off your high horse already and understand that humanity is such, that some will succeed, some will fail, and most will be somewhere in between those two extremes.
 
183Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Sat, Mar 20, 2010, 14:59
Oh thats right, raising taxes on rents and dividends recieved by the wealthiest few percent of americans

Again, you misquote me. The taxes on the rents & dividends of the wealthiest Americans will cover a very small part of the Medicare hole. That's it. And I am absolutely fine with that. Those people, by and large, had their taxes substantially cut during the Bush years, requiring the government to borrow the money at interest.

Some of the poor will qualify for subsidies to get health insurance (and believe me: You are paying for their health care anyway). The idea is that those who have insurance, by and large, participate in preventative care which helps knock down their health care costs substantially.

Which, to make it clear, you are paying anyway.
 
184Nuclear Gophers
� � � ID: 7115138
� � � Sat, Mar 20, 2010, 15:37
If you go way back in this post i posted I think 18 ways the rich are paying for this. To bad for all 18 of them, right. Please sarge, inheriting from your father. I worked for the riches people in the Pittsburgh area and let me tell you 99 percent did not inherit it. A lot of them started with nothing, so dont try telling me the inheritence bull crap. Thats just not right. By the way your post 182 is very contradictory. Inherit it or succeed, pick one. Ill pick succeed.
 
185Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Sat, Mar 20, 2010, 15:44
Nothing wrong with picking "succeed." I certainly agree with that.

But the taxes on the wealthy are nowhere near what the GOP negotiated with President Clinton on in the 90s. They haven't been paying their fair share since.

Meanwhile, I think we've talked about the "17 tax increases," most of which are not tax increases at all. And that only looks at half the equation: Without this bill the government will be paying a lot more money out, and that money has to come from somewhere.
 
186sarge33rd
� � � ID: 280311620
� � � Sat, Mar 20, 2010, 15:46
NG: I know I grossly "over generalized". But no more so, than the implication of "let them work for it if they don;t want to be poor", over generalizes that most poor are that way by choice. NEITHER, is absolutely true. Yet by and large, the Right seems to derive a perverse sense of pleasure, out of painting the 'poor' as lazy, stupid, good-for-nothings.
 
187Nuclear Gophers
� � � ID: 7115138
� � � Sat, Mar 20, 2010, 16:12
Go ahead and let caterpillar pay their fair share and see the jobs go away. And then what will be the governments solution for that. That will be fun to see.
 
188Building 7
� � � ID: 574402017
� � � Sat, Mar 20, 2010, 16:17
Unconstitutional reason #5

Some of these Dems may be risking their seat voting for legislation that could get ruled unconstitutional.

 
189Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Sat, Mar 20, 2010, 18:10
If the House approves the Senate bill in the same legislation by which it approves changes to the Senate bill, it will fail that requirement.

This is not true. The Constitution leaves it entirely in the hands of Congress how it conveys its approval of legislation that it passes to the President for signature.

The GOP seems to be hoping to pin its hopes on some procedural questions. The same thing they take defense lawyers to task for in criminal law, ironically enough. By and large, the American people simply don't care about the process.

NG: You must be having a conversation with someone else. Or you are conflating what sarge is saying with what I am saying. Let's wait awhile to let the water clear a bit, OK? It doesn't make much sense, for my part, to respond to continued misquotes.
 
190Boldwin
� � � ID: 292351810
� � � Sat, Mar 20, 2010, 21:06
This is not true, PD.

The Constitution is very precise on the order in which these things are done, and this issue isn't decided by a Soros owned front like 'Fact-Check'. It will be decided in the not yet packed to the left SCOTUS.
 
191Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Sat, Mar 20, 2010, 21:43
You're willing to embarrass yourself with another use of the phrase "Soros owned front like "Fact-Check"? I tell ya--typically it takes maybe one public slapdown before I get it. But this one will be four for you. Maybe you are under the impression that a bunch of vague talking point words make an argument if they are stung together?

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings

Pretty simple stuff, actually.

But please: Spend a lot of your time talking about process. And make sure to use "the second coming of fascism" as often as possible.
 
192Boldwin
� � � ID: 292351810
� � � Sat, Mar 20, 2010, 23:17
Maybe it will penetrate your prejudgement if you read it from the Democratic Underground.

Lots of liberals kicking that article around there, but the bottom line is that even if an unconstitutional procedure has been used before, when that procedure gets challenged in the SCOTUS it will be overturned just as the line item veto was ruled unconstitutional because it did not strictly follow the precise language describing the procedure of legislations' passage laid out in the constitution.

The Slaughter rule soooo does not follow the procedure and the lawsuit is already in the works.
 
193Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Sat, Mar 20, 2010, 23:19
I think you're about a week behind, Baldwin. It is all moot. There is no reconciliation process being used for the health care bill.

Which is why I encourage such postings of yours...
 
194Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Sat, Mar 20, 2010, 23:32
Just to be clear, the latest procedural news.
 
195Nuclear Gophers
� � � ID: 7115138
� � � Sun, Mar 21, 2010, 01:56
What misquote. Caterpillar says they are going to lose 100 million dollars. How are they going to make that up. Lay offs. Seems like you dont care about the people who are going to lose their jobs over this health care bill. A jobs loss bill. The water seems pretty clear to me. Health care bill equals job losses.
 
196Seattle Zen
� � � ID: 1410391215
� � � Sun, Mar 21, 2010, 02:07
Lots of liberals kicking that article around there, but the bottom line is that even if an unconstitutional procedure has been used before, when that procedure gets challenged in the SCOTUS it will be overturned just as the line item veto was ruled unconstitutional because it did not strictly follow the precise language describing the procedure of legislations' passage laid out in the constitution.

No. The line item veto is unconstitutional because it violated the separations of powers, Congress cannot cede the power to write legislation and that is what the line item veto amounted to.

I think you're about a week behind, Baldwin. It is all moot. There is no reconciliation process being used for the health care bill.

What are you talking about, PD? That's been the plan all along.

Yep, going to go through reconciliation.
Democrats said they would vote Sunday on the Senate bill and on revisions to it included in a budget reconciliation measure.

Democrats said the outcome would be the same: the Senate bill would be sent to Mr. Obama, who would sign it into law, and the reconciliation bill would go to the Senate, which could take it up within days.

At the Capitol rally with Mr. Obama, the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, assured House Democrats that their Senate colleagues would act quickly on the reconciliation bill, including final revisions to the health care measure. �I have the commitments of a significant majority of the United States Senate to make that good law even better,� he said.
 
197Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Sun, Mar 21, 2010, 02:42
That's been the plan all along.

That has been hinted as an option, but Pelosi has been very coy about it.

The House Majority Leader himself said Saturday afternoon that they were not going to use reconciliation. And if they don't have to they shouldn't. Not doing so will kick the legs out from under the shrill GOP arguments the last two weeks.
 
198Boldwin
� � � ID: 292351810
� � � Sun, Mar 21, 2010, 07:44
SZ

No. The line item veto is unconstitutional because it violated the separations of powers,

Ths SCOTUS reasoning included explicit mention that a line item veto would violate the defined order of legislation's passage specified in the constitution.
 
199biliruben
� � � ID: 16105237
� � � Sun, Mar 21, 2010, 07:50
NG - Until the great recession, Cat was running profits of nearly 4 billion annually. Even in the worst building environment in a generation, they were running nearly a billion in profits.

They are competing with companies that are either in the US and subject to the same issues (UTX, Deere), or are in countries that already help support universal coverage (Japan, Germany.)

If they can be competitive on an equal footing, then perhaps they are a bloated company that needs to cede some business (and employees) to companies that can be competitive.

I suspect, however, that they will either take a few percent hit in profitability, or they will pass the costs on to the rest of us.

Bottom line is that if they truly can't compete on an equal footing, however, we shouldn't be propping up a poorly run company.
 
200Nuclear Gophers
� � � ID: 7115138
� � � Sun, Mar 21, 2010, 08:29
199-wow. Im speechless. Its shame that everything cant be on equal footing. Maybe we should fly a drone over and just put them out of their misery. s
 
201biliruben
� � � ID: 16105237
� � � Sun, Mar 21, 2010, 08:32
It's a shame you are speechless. I'd like to hear more than snark.

As someone who lived in Illinois in the early 90s, it's clear that Cat is no friend to labor. I put anything coming from them in that context.
 
202Nuclear Gophers
� � � ID: 7115138
� � � Sun, Mar 21, 2010, 08:55
#16 seed has never beaten a # 1 seed. That isnt right. The 1 seed should play 4 players to 5. That should even it up and then a 16 seed may win. Boo Weekly is playing horrible golf right now. So to make it fair lets let him place his first shot where ever he wants. That would make it fair. Walmart makes more money than KMart. So lets make Walmart just open up every other day. That would make it fair. You make it so easy to "snark".
 
203sarge33rd
� � � ID: 280311620
� � � Sun, Mar 21, 2010, 08:56
CAT won't "lose" $100,000,000. They simply stand to profit $3,900,000,000 instead of $4,000,000,000.

Truly, it isn't THAT significant a 'cost factor' for them, and should not result in any job losses. That's just so much smoke-n-mirror.
 
204biliruben
� � � ID: 16105237
� � � Sun, Mar 21, 2010, 08:57
I have no idea what you are talking about.

Why do you think Cat is being put at a disadvantage to it's direct competitors?
 
205biliruben
� � � ID: 16105237
� � � Sun, Mar 21, 2010, 09:03
Maybe a typo in the 3rd paragraph is why your blood-pressure is shooting up? "Can" should be "can't." Though I thought that would be clear from my final graph.

If they can't be competitive on an equal footing, then perhaps they are a bloated company that needs to cede some business (and employees) to companies that can be competitive.
 
206biliruben
� � � ID: 16105237
� � � Sun, Mar 21, 2010, 09:04
Or maybe you are an employee or have your retirement solely in CAT stock?
 
207Nuclear Gophers
� � � ID: 7115138
� � � Sun, Mar 21, 2010, 09:46
i just did a search on caterpillars finances for 2009. Revenue was 2.714 billion, a decrease of 344 million or 11 percent. Profit after taxes was 259 million down 126 million or 33 percent decrease. So if their health care increases 100 million in the first year their profit would be 159 million if things stay the same as 2009.
 
208Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Sun, Mar 21, 2010, 09:51
Ths SCOTUS reasoning included explicit mention that a line item veto would violate the defined order of legislation's passage specified in the constitution.

Where?

Clinton v City of New York was decided largely because the text of the bill that was signed was different from the text of the bill that was send to him for signature, and the Constitution provided for no such lawmaking ability by the President. There is no mention about passage order.
 
209Nuclear Gophers
� � � ID: 7115138
� � � Sun, Mar 21, 2010, 09:58
No I do not have stock and 207 is not smoke and mirrors.
 
210biliruben
� � � ID: 16105237
� � � Sun, Mar 21, 2010, 10:00
CAT's income statement.

No idea where you are getting your numbers. Maybe quarterly?
 
211Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Sun, Mar 21, 2010, 10:03
Capuano now a "yes" vote on the bill

Meanwhile, Stupak is close to a deal with the White House on an Executive Order to take the place of his amendment.

Stupak claims he has 8 votes (including his own). The Dems might have the votes without him. But with him, this is a done deal.
 
212Pancho Villa
� � � ID: 29118157
� � � Sun, Mar 21, 2010, 10:15
So much for quid pro quo.

Matheson to vote no

Will there be any apologies from the Malkins and others who smeared Jim Matheson, including our own resident poster who thinks destroying the careers of both Matheson brothers, based on innuendo and rumour, is a conservative principle?
 
213Nuclear Gophers
� � � ID: 7115138
� � � Sun, Mar 21, 2010, 10:39
I went to info and I think I typed in caterpillar financial report for 2009. And i clicked one of the links and it came up as a PDF form.
 
214biliruben
� � � ID: 16105237
� � � Sun, Mar 21, 2010, 11:21
Was it an SEC document?

You'll have to give me a link. There are some pretty big discrepancies.
 
215Seattle Zen
� � � ID: 1410391215
� � � Sun, Mar 21, 2010, 11:30
The SCOTUS reasoning included explicit mention that a line item veto would violate the defined order of legislation's passage specified in the constitution.

Oh, really? Since it's explicit, it should be easy to link to it, yes?

One of two things is going to happen, Baldy. One - you are going to complain that you don't have to time to find it or Two - you are going to link to a paragraph that I fill politely explain to you does not mean what you think it does. Since you are incapable of conceding, I'll just consider it done on your behalf.
 
216Building 7
� � � ID: 574402017
� � � Sun, Mar 21, 2010, 11:32
What if Pennsylvania passed a state law that said......Pennsylvania residents are not required to purchase health insurance and are not required to pay any tax or fine for not doing so.

There would be a conflict between the federal law and the state law. The 10th amendment adresses this, and the state law would win, because mandating the purchase of health care is not in the Constitution. Ordering the citizens to do anything is not in the Constitution.

At least that's how the writers of the Constitution planned for it to be IMO. They wanted the federal government to be limited in its powers. And the power go to the states and the people ala the 9th and 10th amendments.
 
217Nuclear Gophers
� � � ID: 7115138
� � � Sun, Mar 21, 2010, 11:46
Found it try this-www.cat.com/cda/files/2058525/7/Final%204Q%202009%20CFS%20Release.pdf
 
218biliruben
� � � ID: 16105237
� � � Sun, Mar 21, 2010, 11:59
Looks like 2nd quarter 09
 
219Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Sun, Mar 21, 2010, 12:07
B7: It depends upon what the states are actually challenging, but it is simply not true that state law automatically trumps a clear Commerce Clause law such as the health care insurance reform bill. SCOTUS has granted Congress very wide powers to regulate commerce across state lines.

It should probably be noted that the Senate bill being considered is far more state-rights friendly than the original House bill. Doesn't matter to those who oppose anything coming from Obama, but the distinction is worth noting.

I don't doubt that the Right, because they are unable to win at the ballot box or in the legislator, will attempt to have a judge overturn the bill. But the states who will spend their taxpayer dollars in this form of civil disobedience are fighting a losing cause.
 
220Nuclear Gophers
� � � ID: 7115138
� � � Sun, Mar 21, 2010, 12:13
First sentence says Reported revenue 2.714 billion for 2009 not 2nd quarter.
 
221Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Sun, Mar 21, 2010, 13:12
MSNBC is reporting that Stupak is a "yes." I don't know if the rest of his posse will be moving to the "yes" column as well but (if so) this will put the Dems well over the 216 needed to pass.

pd
 
222Seattle Zen
� � � ID: 1410391215
� � � Sun, Mar 21, 2010, 13:19
Sausage-making at it's finest!
 
223Nuclear Gophers
� � � ID: 7115138
� � � Sun, Mar 21, 2010, 13:34
CNN just reported Stupak still a no vote
 
224Building 7
� � � ID: 574402017
� � � Sun, Mar 21, 2010, 13:38
My interpretation is in black and white, and yours is a stretch. Commerce clause.....schlommerce clause.

I can be sitting around , minding my own business, not buying insurance......and that is commerce? The only commerce going on is that being illegally created and foisted on the American public. Otherwise there is no commerce.

 
225Boldwin
� � � ID: 292351810
� � � Sun, Mar 21, 2010, 13:45
SZ

I heard it explained that way on the radio by the lawyer who will be filing the lawsuit as soon as it is needed.
 
226Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Sun, Mar 21, 2010, 13:58
B7: I'm sorry my point was unclear. With respect, however, it doesn't seem you've done any research on the Commerce Clause (and how it is applied) with which to disagree with my point.
 
227sarge33rd
� � � ID: 280311620
� � � Sun, Mar 21, 2010, 14:13
re Stupak and his vote:

Stupak is now poised to support the bill, NBC's Chuck Todd reported. Stupak told CNN that there is no deal yet but that he and the White House are "close" to an agreement. "It's a work in progress," he said.

from MSNBC:

link
 
228Razor
� � � ID: 222262113
� � � Sun, Mar 21, 2010, 14:26
Nuclear Gophers - Google Cat, go to the financial information section and look at the income statement. You're looking at quarterly numbers for Cat Financial, a subsidiary of Cat. Isn't that obvious from the press release?
 
229Boldwin
� � � ID: 292351810
� � � Sun, Mar 21, 2010, 14:47
How could any pro-lifer trust the executive order of such an extremely pro-abortion politician as Obama?
 
230Seattle Zen
� � � Leader
� � � ID: 055343019
� � � Sun, Mar 21, 2010, 15:14
I heard it explained that way on the radio by the lawyer who will be filing the lawsuit as soon as it is needed.

Sounds like a loser in many, many ways.
 
231sarge33rd
� � � ID: 280311620
� � � Sun, Mar 21, 2010, 15:45
How could any pro-lifer trust the executive order of such an extremely pro-abortion politician as Obama?

What you really mean:

How could any pro-lifer any of you trust the executive order of such an extremely pro-abortion , as I have repeatedly stated while failing to prove my contention, Marxist politician as Obama?
 
232sarge33rd
� � � ID: 280311620
� � � Sun, Mar 21, 2010, 16:02
One aspect of this entire debate, confounds me to ne end. The Republican contention that simply allowing Insurance companies to sell across state lines.

They DO sell in multiple states. BUT, each state has it's own laws regarding contract terminology, loss ratios, etc etc. So to sell in IA, the company must get it's rates, forms and contract approved by the IA Dept of Insurance. Same then with NE, SD and so forth.

This is I think, in keeping with the ideal of 'states rights", as each state determines what is 'best' for it. So how would for ex, requiring Maine to recognize the terminology and applicability of a policy written by a Texas based company and meeting TX Dpt of Ins requirements, NOT be a violation of "states rights"?

 
233Tree
� � � ID: 248472317
� � � Sun, Mar 21, 2010, 16:04
How could any pro-lifer trust the executive order of such an extremely pro-abortion politician as Obama?

says the guy who is perfectly ok in accepting the lies of a conman like Sean Hannity.
 
234Texas Flood
� � � ID: 7101698
� � � Sun, Mar 21, 2010, 17:08
I have no clue how any clear thinking person could have ever been
in favor of THIS health care bill. This is one of the worst days in
the history of our country.
 
235sarge33rd
� � � ID: 280311620
� � � Sun, Mar 21, 2010, 17:12
Really? I have to disagree.
 
236Tree
� � � ID: 248472317
� � � Sun, Mar 21, 2010, 17:16
This is one of the worst days in
the history of our country.


now THAT is funny...and quite frankly, insulting.

Pearl Harbor, 9/11, Oklahoma City, The day we invaded Iraq 7 years ago, The Civil War, the Great Depression, JFK's assassination, MLK's assassination, the creation of Japanese internment camps in this country, and countless other awful incidents in this nation's history trump the fear tactics and absolute drama queen theatrics of those boohooing in the streets about the signing of this bill.
 
237Building 7
� � � ID: 574402017
� � � Sun, Mar 21, 2010, 17:21
With respect, however, it doesn't seem you've done any research on the Commerce Clause (and how it is applied) with which to disagree with my point.

With respect, how would you know what research I've done on it? I read Baldwin's link to the Heritage Foundation document, which remains un-refuted. It says they can regulate economic activity, but never have they regulated economic inactivity. It would be a new precedent by the court to do so.
 
238biliruben
� � � ID: 16105237
� � � Sun, Mar 21, 2010, 17:21
"A day that will live in infamy! The uninsured will be able to get health insurance!"

Doesn't really have that ring to it, does it. I know it gets some folk's blood boiling, but I honestly don't understand why. I assume ignorance or prejudice, but maybe I'm wrong.
 
239sarge33rd
� � � ID: 280311620
� � � Sun, Mar 21, 2010, 17:25
and don't forget Tree, 11/4/04 was hardly a banner day either. (Seeing as how the Constitution and BoR was under constant internal assault for the following 4 years.)
 
240Tree
� � � ID: 248472317
� � � Sun, Mar 21, 2010, 17:29
and don't forget Tree, 11/4/04 was hardly a banner day either.

while i don't disagree with you, i can't really lump that in with the others, which were assaults on human life and decency. 11/04/04 was an election, and the majority won. it may have been an awful decision, and a puzzling one, to see so many people vote they way they did, but i don't know that it compares to the others i listed.
 
241sarge33rd
� � � ID: 280311620
� � � Sun, Mar 21, 2010, 17:32
Oh I know. I wouldn't quite rank it alongside 12/7/41 or 9/11/01. But I wouldn't rank it THAT far ahead of them either.
 
242sarge33rd
� � � ID: 280311620
� � � Sun, Mar 21, 2010, 17:33
and in reality Tree, the MAJORITY, did not win that election.
 
243Texas Flood
� � � ID: 7101698
� � � Sun, Mar 21, 2010, 20:16
As i said clear thinking people. You will never convince me that
this ass clown Obama will ever do anything that is good for the
people of this country. He and his cronies have their own
agenda.

Uninsured people get excellent medical care. I've
seen it up close and personal. My son is currently uninsured
and suffering from cancer and he's getting great care. He
lives in SanFrancisco and i've been there with him for 6 weeks
while he recovers from surgery, chemo/radiation therapy. He's
had great surgeons, oncologists and radiologists. It looks like
he's on track to make a complete recovery and at age 37 he still
has a lot to live for.

I am not against health care for anyone but I am against all of
the dirty politics that is behind this bill. Our government has
become corrupt and out of control. It's not just Democrats.
Republicans had plenty of time to do something too and
they......

fvck it its not worth ranting about anymore. I feel betrayed.
 
244Boldwin
� � � ID: 292351810
� � � Sun, Mar 21, 2010, 20:43
That's how America dies. Not with a shot, not with a wimper. It ends with a lie just like Eden.

Stupak the dupe walks out with shoulders wrapped in the arms of abortion.
 
245Boldwin
� � � ID: 292351810
� � � Sun, Mar 21, 2010, 20:46


Only there's no handshake, not one.
 
246Seattle Zen
� � � ID: 1410391215
� � � Sun, Mar 21, 2010, 20:48
Cry me a river, you two. Betrayed, this is what Candidate Obama's campaigned was based upon and now he has delivered, were you not paying attention?
 
247Boldwin
� � � ID: 292351810
� � � Sun, Mar 21, 2010, 20:49
If only he would quit the thug life.
 
248Boldwin
� � � ID: 292351810
� � � Sun, Mar 21, 2010, 20:51
SZ

Well I have to agree there. It was all about America betrayed.

I didn't hear him admit he was a marxist so I wouldn't go claiming the election ratified that direction.
 
249DWetzel
� � � ID: 33337117
� � � Sun, Mar 21, 2010, 20:53
TF, I have just one question for you (and I'm going somewhere with this):

Who pays for your son's care right now?
 
250Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Sun, Mar 21, 2010, 21:49
You will never convince me that this ass clown Obama will ever do anything that is good for the people of this country.

Wow. Guess we'll stop trying.

Still and all, I'm sure when you look back you'll see that this is an unnecessarily broad statement, yes?

All in all, the Dems did exactly what they said they would do. Anyone who feels "betrayed" wasn't paying attention when these Democrats were all running for office. And (going out on a limb here) I don't think anyone who feels "betrayed" voted for the guy to feel betrayed about anything anyway.

A good day for Democrats. A bad day for America-haters.
 
251Seattle Zen
� � � ID: 1410391215
� � � Sun, Mar 21, 2010, 21:56
A bad day for America-haters.

I wouldn't say that. It's a bad day for angry, selfish people. And it really isn't that bad a day for them. The day we went to war in Iraq, THAT was a bad day and those who thought so were called America-haters. That was simply not true.

Hey, TF, after your awful day, fewer Americans will die for lack of affordable healthcare. After my awful day, tens of thousands of Iraqis were condemned to death. "Worst" day? Not even close.
 
252jedman
� � � Dude
� � � ID: 315192219
� � � Sun, Mar 21, 2010, 22:10
I'm watching some of the debate and MSNBC and Fox. I have a
question about the executive order that moved Stupak and his
crew.
IF, and I say IF there is language in the bill that allows for federal
funding of abortion and the President signs an executive order
that says it will not happen, how does that prevent the funding
from happening? Certainly, an executive order cannot override
what has been put into law, can it? Otherwise, the president
would have unlimited power to change any law he wanted with
an executive order? So, what has Stupak gained with this
promise?
What am I missing on this aspect?
 
253Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Sun, Mar 21, 2010, 22:16
The Executive Order has the force of law. It directs the members of the executive branch in ways specified in the order.

Stupak gained nothing legal (since the health care bill already had the requirement that elective abortion benefits be paid for by premiums directly from the insured, and held in a separate account). But he gained some confirmation that the Administration wasn't lying when it said it would follow the law.
 
254jedman
� � � Dude
� � � ID: 315192219
� � � Sun, Mar 21, 2010, 22:28
It looks like we are going to see if the Dems are correct in all
their assumptions, the bill looks to pass. Now it's like after
Obama was elected, let's see what really happens.
I own my own business, provide health insurance for all my
employees and pay half the premium. It costs me about
$40,000 per year to insure 7 people through Kaiser Permanente.
I'll certainly be able to judge what it does for me after all is said
and done. The speculation will be over and fact will be available.
I do think the Dems are going to take a big hit in the fall
because of this, I think they underestimate the anger of their
constituents.
 
255Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Sun, Mar 21, 2010, 22:51
The Dems are likely to lose seats anyway (some key retirements, off-year election, etc). The GOP, of course, will spin this as a referendum on health care.

You're exactly right that we will soon see and judge what happens. This uncertainty, however, doesn't appear to stop people from being angry (after being stroked by Republicans) over what they don't yet know.
 
256Boldwin
� � � ID: 362262121
� � � Sun, Mar 21, 2010, 23:03
Republican Rep. Jean Schmidt said an executive order "is not worth the paper it is printed on."

"It is not the law of the land and it can be rescinded in the blink of an eye," she said.
Even Judas got real money.

 
257Boldwin
� � � ID: 362262121
� � � Sun, Mar 21, 2010, 23:13
Less valuable than a dead cat.

 
258Building 7
� � � ID: 574402017
� � � Sun, Mar 21, 2010, 23:17
Why didn't Obama just issue an Executive Order for the entire health care bill?
 
259Texas Flood
� � � ID: 7101698
� � � Sun, Mar 21, 2010, 23:17
Actually Zen I agree with you about Iraq. We have no business
being over there. We can't manage our own affairs efficiently.
Look no further than social security, the postal system, medicare,
medicaid, and any other social program you want to name.

If you think this health care bill is a good thing nothing I say will
change your mind. You won't see any of our public officials
covered by this plan. They're smarter than that. I quit believing
and trusting in our government years ago.
 
260Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Sun, Mar 21, 2010, 23:18
Yes, a President can rescind an EO. But I don't think this one will be. It is far too public. But it does, indeed, carry the weight of law when issued.

Regardless, there are already previsions in the bill to keep any monies for elective abortions separate (in fact, if you have elective abortions as a benefit, you would have to actually write a separate check for that premium, and it would be held in a different account by your insurance company).

Very few insurance policies pay for elective abortions. And very few doctors who do elective abortions accept insurance anyway. The EO merely says what the law already says.

You would have to believe that Obama would not follow the law in order to believe that abortions would be funded by taxpayer dollars. And if you believe that, there is literally no reason to fight over the wording of the law at all.
 
261Boldwin
� � � ID: 362262121
� � � Sun, Mar 21, 2010, 23:26
As practiced, every abortion is already covered under the 'abortionist is willing to say the woman's life is at risk' loophole and neither the senate language or the executive order will stem the river of blood.
 
262Boldwin
� � � ID: 362262121
� � � Sun, Mar 21, 2010, 23:44
Not only are 'we' now the USSA or at the very least now irrevocably leaning that way, but we are also in the uncharted territory where congress enacts major sea-change legislation that they know beyond all doubt, that the majority doesn't want.

What happens when Republicans run that play back at them? They wouldn't really? Would they? They are afterall the good guys. [see 'Time Bandits']
 
264Farn
� � � Leader
� � � ID: 451044109
� � � Sun, Mar 21, 2010, 23:47
that they know beyond all doubt, that the majority doesn't want.

Making this up as you Boldwin?
 
265Boldwin
� � � ID: 362262121
� � � Sun, Mar 21, 2010, 23:50
Golden Oldie.
 
266Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Sun, Mar 21, 2010, 23:52
neither the senate language or the executive order will stem the river of blood.

Nor was it intended to be. And (again) because very, very few elective abortions are covered by abortions, your dismay over Stupak is just that much more misplaced.
 
267Boldwin
� � � ID: 362262121
� � � Sun, Mar 21, 2010, 23:54
Bill Kristol with interesting prediction.
 
268Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Sun, Mar 21, 2010, 23:54
Sorry: that should read: few elective abortions are covered by insurance.

I do note, however, that employees of the RNC are covered by a policy which covers elective abortions. Ironically enough. I guess they are more marxist than the rest of the government...
 
269Boldwin
� � � ID: 362262121
� � � Mon, Mar 22, 2010, 00:07
 
270Tree
� � � ID: 248472317
� � � Mon, Mar 22, 2010, 01:26
Uninsured people get excellent medical care.

yea? tell that to this uninsured person. i can't afford to see a doctor.

That's how America dies.

you're still here? surprised you haven't already left this dead, socialist, communist, marxist nation.

If only he would quit the thug life.

no shock - another bigoted and borderline racist statement coming from Baldwin.

The Dems are likely to lose seats anyway (some key retirements, off-year election, etc). The GOP, of course, will spin this as a referendum on health care.

although, i'm pretty sure there are more Republicans that stand to lose seats for the same reasons.

TF - DWetz asked a question, and i'm curious as well. who's paying for your son's care?






 
271Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Mon, Mar 22, 2010, 01:32
although, i'm pretty sure there are more Republicans that stand to lose seats for the same reasons.

After two elections of near-Democratic sweeps, this year promises to be different for the Dems, particularly for those Democrats who are running in very red districts. To think that Democrats will run the table again just isn't realistic, especially since some of the Dems in very red districts have retired.

Democrats should keep their majority in both houses of Congress without too much difficulty. But there's really no way they will continue to have the numbers they have right now after November.
 
272Tree
� � � ID: 248472317
� � � Mon, Mar 22, 2010, 01:36
To think that Democrats will run the table again just isn't realistic, especially since some of the Dems in very red districts have retired.

i wasn't disagreeing with that sentiment. rather, just stating that there are more republicans retiring and what not, than democrats.
 
273Boldwin
� � � ID: 362262121
� � � Mon, Mar 22, 2010, 06:31
Repeal may not be out of the question, but my advice is to exercise more and improve your diet. Try to minimize your encounters with Obamacare and delay your encounter with the death panel in whatever form it takes. - One of the Tea Party leaders
 
274sarge33rd
� � � ID: 280311620
� � � Mon, Mar 22, 2010, 07:37
Uninsured people get excellent medical care.

yea? tell that to this uninsured person. i can't afford to see a doctor.


ditto.
 
275Texas Flood
� � � ID: 7101698
� � � Mon, Mar 22, 2010, 08:35
Tree, my sons health care is being paid for by Medi/Cal, the
hospital, a local program called Healthy and Me.

Sarge you can walk into any ER in this country and get medical
treatment or you can apply for programs that are available to all
citizens or you could look for an employer that provides
coverage.

I retired about 4 years ago. I'm not close to Medicare age so I
actually decided to take a job at our local tribal casino. It only
pays $10.75 per hour but our benefits are fantastic. We have
over 1000 employees and post jobs every day that range in
compensation for over $100k per year to $8.75 per hr. Guess
what we have problems finding enough qualified people in a
state that has an un employment rate of almost 18%. Business is
booming.

I'm not upset that everyone is about to get health care thats a
good thing, but I am upset about a huge expansion of
government, higher taxes and the selling of our souls to the
nanny state.

Please explain to me how any major government run program
has been successful. Medicare? Welfare? The Postal Service?
Medicaid? Social Security? The banking system, General Motors
Housing? Our friggin government couldn't run a Dairy Queen?
 
276biliruben
� � � ID: 16105237
� � � Mon, Mar 22, 2010, 08:46
What do you mean by successful?

Do you still get your mail everyday (isn't the postal system private)?

Do you see elderly freezing to death on the streets?

Do you see children in rags begging on the street corners?

And what percentage of private companies have been around and "successful" for 70 years?
 
277sarge33rd
� � � ID: 280311620
� � � Mon, Mar 22, 2010, 08:54
In truth, the Postal Service works pretty damn well.

Given the number of pieces they handle on a daily basis, it is not unusual that some go astray. What is unusual, is the extraordinarily LOW number of said pieces.

SS works too. Though it has not been addressed anywhere near adequately, to counter/compensate for the baby-boomers.

Medicare/Medicaid, are jointly responsible for saving how many lives over the past 1/2 dozen or so decades? I hardly think, one can call those failures.

As for your contention of "higher taxes". That's so much smoke and mirror. GWB cut taxes and grossly increased spending, which ran up the deficit obscenely. Restoring taxes to the pre GWB tax cuts, does not constitute a tax increase IMHO. It constitutes restoration of common sense.

Yes, I can walk into any ER and get treated. Then get a bill, which I can not pay. Get advised to have testing done, which I can not pay for. Depending on what that testing showed, get advised to have treatments, for which I can not pay.

I finally found work here in the Charleston area, and start today. Not in management, but as a floor sales person at a car lot. They hired 4 of us. You want to know the level of competition for those 4 slots? I am by profession, a Finance Director. Taking 3 steps backwards, to get job. 2 of the other 3, were until recently, General Managers for dealerships. They ran those stores a year ago. Responsible for all aspects of dealership operations. THAT, is how tough it is to find work around here.
 
278Mith
� � � ID: 58136177
� � � Mon, Mar 22, 2010, 08:59
Didn't GM just announce they expect to pay back the debt with interest and go public this summer?

The American education system was the envy of the world for the better part of a century.

The Federal Highway Act sure worked out pretty well.

 
279sarge33rd
� � � ID: 280311620
� � � Mon, Mar 22, 2010, 09:01
How can the Right possibly, with a straight face, claim to want "less government'; and at the same time scream for federal intervention into personal medical choices like a womans right to choose? Or decry an individual as being 'unAmerican", for not worshiping the same god you do, or in the same fashion? (Which would seem to indicate a desire to declare a nationa/federalized belief system)
 
280Tree
� � � ID: 248472317
� � � Mon, Mar 22, 2010, 09:20
Tree, my sons health care is being paid for by Medi/Cal, the hospital, a local program called Healthy and Me....

I am upset about a huge expansion of government, higher taxes and the selling of our souls to the
nanny state.

Please explain to me how any major government run program has been successful. Medicare? Welfare? The Postal Service? Medicaid?/


so, let me get this straight. you're complaining about a government run health care program, the expansion of government, and the "failure" of Medicaid, while your son's care by Medi-Cal is exactly that?

from their own webpage: Medi-Cal is California's Medicaid program. This is a public health insurance program which provides needed health care services for low-income individuals including families with children, seniors, persons with disabilities, foster care, pregnant women, and low income people with specific diseases such as tuberculosis, breast cancer or HIV/AIDS. Medi-Cal is financed equally by the State and federal government.

personally speaking, thank God your son is able to get government sponsored medical care. he might not be making the recovery he is if it wasn't for that.
 
281biliruben
� � � ID: 16105237
� � � Mon, Mar 22, 2010, 09:24
But is Medi-Cal successful?
 
282bibA
� � � ID: 13221228
� � � Mon, Mar 22, 2010, 09:26
Nebraska, a strong antiabortion state, withdrew a bill that would have provided prenatal care for illegal immigrants. I find this confusing. Isn't the point of prenatal care to provide a commitment to the unborn?

If they will not allow a woman to have an abortion, one would think that this was because they cared for the unborn child.

This reasoning seems to be that Nebraska's lawmakers base their decisions not on conscience, but solely on politics.

link
 
283Pancho Villa
� � � ID: 29118157
� � � Mon, Mar 22, 2010, 09:32
I am upset about...... the selling of our souls to the
nanny state.


Except in the case of your son's healthcare apparently.
 
284Boldwin
� � � ID: 362262121
� � � Mon, Mar 22, 2010, 09:33
Do you believe pro-lifers owe the entire world pre-natal care?
 
285sarge33rd
� � � ID: 280311620
� � � Mon, Mar 22, 2010, 09:35
You insist on having the right to dictate to another human being their medical choices. So you had best be prepared to pay for those "choices" you shove down their throats.

At least, that is my opinion.
 
286Mith
� � � ID: 58136177
� � � Mon, Mar 22, 2010, 09:37
On the right, of course not. They only want for the kind of government intervention that takes freedom of choice away from people, not the kind that gives it to them.
 
287Boldwin
� � � ID: 362262121
� � � Mon, Mar 22, 2010, 09:38
Accepting government services that you have unwillingly been billed for does not constitute a contradiction. People making that ridiculous argument will also no doubt shortly be claiming that after we have been ordered to spend 12K yearly or go to jail, that non-socialists don't have a logically coherent right to put in an insurance claim.
 
288Pancho Villa
� � � ID: 29118157
� � � Mon, Mar 22, 2010, 09:43
Do you believe pro-lifers owe the entire world pre-natal care?

If your position was actually pro-life, sure. But in reality, it's just an anti-abortion position based on emotionally-driven politics and not moral grounds.
 
289sarge33rd
� � � ID: 280311620
� � � Mon, Mar 22, 2010, 09:46
You don't have to spend 12k/yr or go to jail.

Now I don;t have the data sets, and frankly would not know how to compile/organize them if I did; but what is the cost of health care for a child from birth to age 10 WITH vs WITHOUT adequate prenatal care?

Once born in this country, one is by right of birth; a citizen. Yes? So that prenatal care denied the illegal immigrant and resulting in a birth of a citizen; costs the tax payer how much, vs what the cost would have been WITH prenatal care?

Stepping over a dollar bill to pickup the shiney nickel, is NEVER smart.

 
290boikin
� � � ID: 532592112
� � � Mon, Mar 22, 2010, 09:59
Didn't GM just announce they expect to pay back the debt with interest and go public this summer?

too bad that does not include all the debt they incurred before government took them over. it is pretty easy to turn a company around when you your past is forgiven and as prize you are are given federal funding.


Can some explain to me how everyone is getting health care? since a single payer system was not passes how exactly is everyone getting health care?
 
291Boldwin
� � � ID: 362262121
� � � Mon, Mar 22, 2010, 10:51
Let's not reward bad behavior. It only guarantees more of it.
 
292biliruben
� � � ID: 16105237
� � � Mon, Mar 22, 2010, 10:53
Ezra Klein discusses the history of the hysterical, and the current hypocrisy:

There is a tendency to think this sort of inane hyperbole an innovation of our polarized age. But it isn't. When Medicare was being considered, the American Medical Association hired Ronald Reagan to record a record housewives could play for their friends. It was called Operation: Coffee Cup, and you can listen to it in the clip atop this post, or read the text here.

Reagan was a more graceful speaker than Blackburn, but his point was much the same. Kill the bill. "If you don�t do this and if I don�t do it," he said, "one of these days you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children�s children, what it once was like in America when men were free.�

Well, the bill passed. And moments ago, Rep. Paul Ryan was on the floor of the House, bellowing against Democrats who would dare propose "across-the-board cuts to Medicare." This is breathless opportunism from Ryan -- he has proposed far deeper across-the-board cuts to Medicare, and is making arguments against the Democrats' bill that would be far more potent and accurate if aimed at his own -- but leave that aside for a moment. The GOP's embrace of the program that Ronald Reagan fought, and that Newt Gingrich sought to let "whither on the vine," is based on the lived experience seniors have had with the bill: It has made them more, rather than less, free.
 
293Boldwin
� � � ID: 362262121
� � � Mon, Mar 22, 2010, 10:56
"one of these days you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children�s children, what it once was like in America when men were free.�

Amen. Not hyperbole. Obama's goal.
 
294Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Mon, Mar 22, 2010, 10:57
Luckily you'll have health care in which to get there.
 
295Boldwin
� � � ID: 362262121
� � � Mon, Mar 22, 2010, 10:58
And provide proof that Ryan ever proposed more than Obama's half a trillion dollar cut in senior's benefits.
 
296Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Mon, Mar 22, 2010, 10:59
#290: I don't know about GM, but many of the banks have paid back TARP money already, with interest. In fact, the government has actually made money on that program, which strengthened the credit and financial markets at the time.
 
297Boldwin
� � � ID: 362262121
� � � Mon, Mar 22, 2010, 11:01
Can some explain to me how everyone is getting health care? since a single payer system was not passes how exactly is everyone getting health care? - Boikin

Basically they are making it illegal not to buy insurance.
 
298biliruben
� � � ID: 16105237
� � � Mon, Mar 22, 2010, 11:04
When the going gets tough, the teabaggers show their true colors.

Tea partiers and other anti-health care activists are known to get rowdy, but today's protest on Capitol Hill--the day before the House is set to vote on historic health care legislation--went beyond the usual chanting and controversial signs, and veered into ugly bigotry and intimidation.

Civil rights hero Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) and fellow Congressional Black Caucus member Andre Carson (D-IN) related a particularly jarring encounter with a large crowd of protesters screaming "kill the bill"... and punctuating their chants with the word "nigger."

Standing next to Lewis, emerging from a Democratic caucus meeting with President Obama, Carson said people in the crowd yelled, "kill the bill and then the N-word" several times, while he and Lewis were exiting the Cannon House office building.

"People have been just downright mean," Lewis added.

And that wasn't an isolated incident. Early this afternoon, standing outside a Democratic whip meeting in the Longworth House office building, I watched Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) make his way out the door, en route to the neighboring Rayburn building. As he rounded the corner toward the exit, wading through a huge crowd of tea partiers and other health care protesters, an elderly white man screamed "Barney, you faggot"--a line that caused dozens of his confederates to erupt in laughter


Such lovable losers.
 
299Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Mon, Mar 22, 2010, 11:07
Which is why they are giving subsidies to about anymore making less than $88K/year to buy it. If you aren't already getting it from work or some other place.

Make no mistake: The only people really worried about the penalties of not having health insurance are those people who already have it, or can get it easily right now. By and large those people who can't get health insurance right now (as opposed to "won't") are overwhelmingly supportive of this bill.
 
300Boldwin
� � � ID: 362262121
� � � Mon, Mar 22, 2010, 11:09
It's all recorded and available on youtube. Link to the N-word being used please. Assuming there wasn't a Dem plant there, besides.

I think the hate was real tho. I think that shocked them. I don't think they even have a clue how much they are now hated. They are in lala-lala land where they think they are doing the public a favor so naturally they don't get the outrage at turning this country marxist. But I didn't hear any racism.
 
301Boldwin
� � � ID: 362262121
� � � Mon, Mar 22, 2010, 11:11
Speaking for the 'by and large' section of the population, not so much.
 
302boikin
� � � ID: 532592112
� � � Mon, Mar 22, 2010, 11:11
#290: I don't know about GM, but many of the banks have paid back TARP money already, with interest. In fact, the government has actually made money on that program, which strengthened the credit and financial markets at the time.

probably because they never needed the money, they scared the government and what do governments do when they get scared they throw money around. But you are correct in the fact that this time at least the government got its money back for the most part.
 
303boikin
� � � ID: 532592112
� � � Mon, Mar 22, 2010, 11:19
Which is why they are giving subsidies to about anymore making less than $88K/year to buy it.

any links for how the subsidies work? i assume it is some kind of scale...
 
304Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Mon, Mar 22, 2010, 11:26
Yeah, it is a scale. I *thought* I had a bookmark to the mechanics of the thing, but will poke around after lunch a bit. It was a bit muddied because it included the small business subsidies on the same page as well.

Assuming there wasn't a Dem plant there, besides.

Seriously? The Dems planted someone to yell "nigger" and "faggot?" If we know anything at all about the tea baggers, it is that they need no help to look stupid.

No one is arguing that their anger isn't real. These ladies were angry, too:

 
305Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Mon, Mar 22, 2010, 11:27
Maybe we can assume, until proven otherwise, that the woman yelling was a plant.
 
306bibA
� � � ID: 292522210
� � � Mon, Mar 22, 2010, 11:54
Do you believe pro-lifers owe the entire world pre-natal care?
Possibly you misunderstood my post if you thought that is what I said.

But yes, I do believe that if someone is responsible for a woman carrying her pregnancy to term when she wishes not to, that they should not deny her prenatal care.
 
307bibA
� � � ID: 292522210
� � � Mon, Mar 22, 2010, 12:26
I have a question for you. Seeing as how I am apparently headed for prison since my employer pays less than 12K yearly for my health insurance, and we have been ordered to spend 12K yearly or go to jail, will I be allowed to run my fantasy teams from my cell?
 
308Tree
� � � ID: 248472317
� � � Mon, Mar 22, 2010, 12:32
a selection of signs from those against affordable health care:







racism, lies, and threats of murder. lovely bunch, those proud americans..
 
309Razor
� � � ID: 57854118
� � � Mon, Mar 22, 2010, 12:41
We've already been through this exercise. Boldwin doesn't consider attacks on Obama's heritage to be out of bounds. Comparisons to Hitler, Stalin, and Satan are appropriate. Just let it go. Those types of attacks say a lot more about Boldwin and those protesters than they do about Obama.
 
310Tree
� � � ID: 248472317
� � � Mon, Mar 22, 2010, 12:42
and now, someone from the Right who is not screaming, shouting, lying, exaggerating, going into woe is me hysterics, and making threats, but rather, taking a moment to step back and think.

How GOP can rebound from its 'Waterloo'?
 
311Boldwin
� � � ID: 362262121
� � � Mon, Mar 22, 2010, 12:55
A Rudolph Giuliani Republican. Which tells you how much he has his finger on the pulse of those he thinks he can lead.
 
312Tree
� � � ID: 248472317
� � � Mon, Mar 22, 2010, 12:58
i realize that a sensible Republican is one that you can't accept. you're much more in line with the whacks, loons, nutjobs, bigots, racists, and those that threaten murder.

It's a shame more don't listen to Frum. He's actually making a lick of sense.
 
313biliruben
� � � ID: 461142511
� � � Mon, Mar 22, 2010, 13:15
I think the hate was real tho. I think that shocked them. I don't think they even have a clue how much they are now hated.

Knee-slapper of the day.

A black man and a gay man in American politics unfamiliar with intense, irrational hatred!

Giggle.
 
314Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Mon, Mar 22, 2010, 13:22
It is fun watching the Right wail and gnash their teeth today. Their Waterloo is upon them.

Romney with a real funny: "Obama has betrayed his oath the the country."

Apparently the new meme: "Obama couldn't get us to work with him. He's an utter failure and betrayed us all!"
 
315Boldwin
� � � ID: 362262121
� � � Mon, Mar 22, 2010, 13:24
The black caucus has grown accustomed to 'most favored minority' status. Kit glove treatment...none dare criticise for fear of the race card, treatment. They didn't expect overt 'enemy of the people' treatment.
 
316Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Mon, Mar 22, 2010, 13:27
So they deserved to be called "nigger." Keep it up!
 
317Boldwin
� � � ID: 362262121
� � � Mon, Mar 22, 2010, 13:45
I've watched the walk on youtube. There was no N-word.
 
318Boldwin
� � � ID: 362262121
� � � Mon, Mar 22, 2010, 13:45
And they richly deserved the anger.
 
319biliruben
� � � ID: 461142511
� � � Mon, Mar 22, 2010, 13:57
Huh. If it's not on YouTube, they are clearly lying. That is a new standard I was unaware of.
 
320Razor
� � � ID: 57854118
� � � Mon, Mar 22, 2010, 13:57
John Lewis, a man who lived and breathed the civil rights movement, knows a racial slur when he sees one and is not going to make up a crazy story. I'd say the only thing crazy as those who deny it happened and defend the rage which caused it. And crazy is as nice as I can put it.
 
321Boldwin
� � � ID: 362262121
� � � Mon, Mar 22, 2010, 14:00
Healthcare has nothing to do with race. Just quit waving that card. Sheesh, it's yer excuse to screw up the country every time.
 
322Mith
� � � ID: 58136177
� � � Mon, Mar 22, 2010, 14:07
Just quit waving that card.

There's a very clear way to render that card useless, you know: get the American political right to stop actuing like racists.

Denying what is out there in plain sight obviously hasn't done the trick.

Amazing you guys still can't figure that out.
 
323Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Mon, Mar 22, 2010, 14:08
Healthcare has nothing to do with race.

Exactly. Which is why shouting "nigger" and "faggot" during a health care rally is incredibly bad form.

I'm glad you agree. In your ham-fisted, "trying to dodge my fellow Chicken Littles" kind of way.
 
324Boldwin
� � � ID: 362262121
� � � Mon, Mar 22, 2010, 14:19
A. They didn't use the N-word.

B. Ok, maybe one person F-bombed Barney. He's so much worse than just gay tho...hard for me to sympathize.

And for that matter, I expect Dems will be planting these cursings from now on. You'll know it when the Capitol police identify the protestor and the aggrieved Dem refuses to press charges.
 
325Razor
� � � ID: 57854118
� � � Mon, Mar 22, 2010, 14:53
Your word against John Lewis'. I'll take his. He was there.
 
326Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Mon, Mar 22, 2010, 15:02
What a surprise-- its a white guy from Texas who is a birther, who yelled "baby killer" at Sestak during the debate...

Any bets on whether Rush follows through on his claim?
 
327Razor
� � � ID: 57854118
� � � Mon, Mar 22, 2010, 15:11
I hope that Rep is formally admonished. They've got to clean up the decorum of the floor of the House.
 
328Tree
� � � ID: 248472317
� � � Mon, Mar 22, 2010, 15:28
He's so much worse than just gay tho

i'm sure it's beyond you why that's an offensive statement.
 
329Nuclear Gophers
� � � ID: 7115138
� � � Mon, Mar 22, 2010, 15:34
Well as you know I was totally against this health care bill. It passed and now we have to see who is right. I really hope the country survives. For me, I just retired from painting and wallpapering a month ago after 36 years. The last 3 to 4 I was working in a lot of pain because of my left knee. A lot of ladder climbing and kneeling finally did me in. So I still have to work, so I got a job at McDonalds near where I live as a Maintenance man and Janitor. I love the hours, 6AM To 2:30 Pm. I am going on their health care plan, cut mine in half per month, but the coverage isnt as good. Oh well thats life. It will be interesting to see how the bill afects me. Not sure if it will, maybe some body knows. The company that owns this McDonalds owns 18 around the area. Ill keep you inform. Just want to say whats done is done with this debate, it is time for all of us to work togethter so the next issue that comes up doesnt tear up the country like the debate for health care has done. Remember the sun will come up tomorrow, and most of us will still have to go to work. Enjoy it, life is to short.
 
330Tree
� � � ID: 248472317
� � � Mon, Mar 22, 2010, 15:39
Just want to say whats done is done with this debate, it is time for all of us to work togethter

amen. i wish more on the Right felt the same way you did.
 
331Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Mon, Mar 22, 2010, 15:51
Good luck, NG.
 
332Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Mon, Mar 22, 2010, 16:17
BTW, in another thread Boldwin pointed out Rush Limbaugh's tale of Walgreens and their refusal to take on Medicare patients because of the reimbursement levels. As I pointed out, they actually are no longer taking Medicaid patients, not Medicare.

Medicaid has usually had extremely low reimbursement levels (which, often as not, are additionally tied to AWP (Average Wholesale Price) in an area rather than actual costs to the pharmacy). But one of the things that occurred in the bill just passed is that Medicaid payment levels will be increased to equal Medicare levels.

So, not only is Walgreens' decision not a result of the bill (as Rush and his echo chamber members would have you believe), but the decision that they did make is likely to be reversed as a result of the bill passing.
 
333Boldwin
� � � ID: 362262121
� � � Mon, Mar 22, 2010, 17:15
Remember the sun will come up tomorrow

Tell it to the Cuban exiles and the ones who went to the wall.
 
334Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Mon, Mar 22, 2010, 17:22
There's nothing like some downer's hyperboles to cloud up things...

You've turned into Debbie Downer...
 
335Boldwin
� � � ID: 362262121
� � � Mon, Mar 22, 2010, 17:26
Take a pain pill.
 
336Seattle Zen
� � � ID: 1410391215
� � � Mon, Mar 22, 2010, 17:30
Nice post NG.

I betting on "country survives".
 
337Seattle Zen
� � � ID: 1410391215
� � � Mon, Mar 22, 2010, 17:37
I saw this whole thing differently than most people. First, I admire the Republicans for fighting so hard, I wish I would have seen that from the Democrats back in 2002-2003 in hopes of preventing the Iraq war.

Second, even though I admire their tenacity, they are crazy to think that this means the Democrats lose big in November or any talk about "repeal".

Third, I am glad that the Democrats had the fortitude and dignity to keep fighting and prevailing while not stooping to demonizing the opposition.

Forth, enough with the ridiculous "it's unconstitutional".
 
338Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Mon, Mar 22, 2010, 17:42
The Republicans literally cannot win enough seats in the Senate in November to overturn an Obama veto.

Their best-case scenario still leaves them short.
 
339biliruben
� � � ID: 461142511
� � � Mon, Mar 22, 2010, 17:43
Pelosi and Obama really take a step up in my estimation from just a couple months ago.

They actually do have spines!
 
340boikin
� � � ID: 532592112
� � � Mon, Mar 22, 2010, 17:51
Forth, enough with the ridiculous "it's unconstitutional"

it probably isn't, but somewhere a founding father is probably rolling in his grave knowing that the government is mandating it's citizens to buy something. In the end public good must trump individual rights...e.g. mandatory vaccines, metal detectors at airports, curfews,...
 
341biliruben
� � � ID: 461142511
� � � Mon, Mar 22, 2010, 18:00
Which mandate would you rather be subjected to,

1) Buy (with a heavy subsidy if you need it) health insurance that you are almost guaranteed to need, or

2) Get shipped over to shoot at people you might kinda like and possibly get your head, arm or big toe blown off your body?

I think this is a no-brainer (so to speak) in terms of government intrusiveness.
 
342Seattle Zen
� � � ID: 1410391215
� � � Mon, Mar 22, 2010, 18:28
The Founding Fathers were cool with people owning other people. To them, the "citizenry" were wealthy, land owning men and they didn't give two $hits about the average guy. Rolling in their graves... bah!
 
343Nuclear Gophers
� � � ID: 7115138
� � � Mon, Mar 22, 2010, 18:57
I watched A P Hill on Fox last night and she had a great point. The democrats had nothing to fight with until that insurance company in California raised rates 39%. That helped them a lot and I have to agree with her. I think thats her name. I know her last name is Hill.
 
344J-Bar
� � � ID: 12222218
� � � Mon, Mar 22, 2010, 19:24
PD- you seem to be the resident expert on the bill and I have a few questions. You mentioned the the Medicaid reimbursement rates will be set to match MCR. Is this all rates; pharmaceutical, doctors, nursing home, all other title XIX programs? Was this included in the CBO projections or separate like the Dr. fix for their reimbursement rates? I still feel that the fiscal projections are way off and will lead to only one conclusion VAT. But this is probably a thread of its own.

Country VAT %
Austria 9.09-16.67%
Belgium 21%
Denmark 25%
Finland 17-22%
France 5.21-19.6%
Germany 7-16%
Greece 11.5-15.25%
Ireland 17.36%
Italy 4-20%
Luxembourg 15%
Netherlands 15.97%
Norway 24%
Portugal 19% (13% in Madeira and Azores)
Spain 16%
Sweden 25%
Switzerland 7.6%
United Kingdom 17.5%
 
345DWetzel
� � � ID: 33337117
� � � Mon, Mar 22, 2010, 20:18
TF, thanks for your answer. In short, your son's care is paid for by:

1. A government program (California Medicaid)

2. Everyone else that uses that hospital (since they have to make enough money to stay solvent, they charge more to the people that can pay in exchange for their charity care).

3. A local charity.

I'm all for the local charity, but I have a hunch they wouldn't be able to come close to funding the care by itself. The other two are what are known 'round these parts as "socialized health care", or "that evil boondoggle by those Marxist bastards" as the case might be. I'm grateful that we have that socialist boondoggle in place to keep your son alive and hopefully prospering, and I don't in the least bit begrudge the $10 or so that will come out of my paycheck each week to cover his care.

And just think how much better your son's life would have been if they had managed to catch the cancer very early, at say a normal checkup. Think how much less expensive that care would have been, and how much less painful the treatments. Now ask yourself why you are considering a bill that would make that scenario play out differently for thousands of people across the country "the end of America".
 
346Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Mon, Mar 22, 2010, 21:00
#344: I am not at all an expert on the bill. I do know (as a former pharmacy tech) that Medicaid rates have sucked for decades, and pharmacies typically lose money on Medicaid sales. The idea was that if these people came into your store they were likely to buy other stuff, but that never really happened. People came in for their medicine and walked right out.

IMO a VAT has some attraction to it but I haven't really studied it too much. You probably know a lot more about it than I do.
 
347Building 7
� � � ID: 574402017
� � � Mon, Mar 22, 2010, 21:08
The VAT is the solution the Debt Commission is going to come up with.
 
348Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Mon, Mar 22, 2010, 21:12
They very well might, B7. One of the biggest attractions is the appearance of transparency and fairness (that is apart from actual transparency and fairness, of course). Much the the angst against the current tax system is the appearance of unfairness and that it is unevenly applied.

Frankly, a Debt Commission recommendation for a VAT might take some of the wind out of the sails of the Tea Party if taken seriously by Obama. But I agree with Baldwin that it seems another setup for a massive committee with a bunch of recommendations that gets shelved even before the ink dries.
 
349Pancho Villa
� � � ID: 29118157
� � � Mon, Mar 22, 2010, 21:13
Amidst all the talk of gloom and doom and the destruction of America, we find that capitalism is rather pleased with this socialist health care bill.

Stocks crept higher as buying spread from the health-care sector, where investors breathed a sigh of relief after Congress passed legislation extending coverage to more Americans.

Health care ended with a 0.6% gain, helped by optimism that Washington's debate over reforms is drawing to a close without some of the worst-case measures that could have threatened private providers' profits.

Standard & Poor's Equity Research Group ranks about 20 ETFs investing in the health-care sector, and has an overweight ranking on several with fairly large investments in the managed-care area, said Tom Graves, an equity analyst. Among them is iShares Dow Jones U.S. Healthcare Provider (IHF), which rose 0.9% Monday.

Managed-care organizations, like pharmaceutical companies, made some significant concessions as part of the overhaul, but have the potential of getting 32 million new customers, said Jeffrey Loo, an equity analyst at S&P. "We think overall that the reform will be positive for the managed-care sector," he said.


In other news, gold fell below $1100 an oz.


 
350Texas Flood
� � � ID: 7101698
� � � Mon, Mar 22, 2010, 21:32
He did catch it early. It was a tiny spot on his tongue and was
caught by his dentist. By the way he's a non smoker and a light
drinker. He's also eats very little meat and is only 37 years old.

He wasn't completely uninsured he paid for a policy called
Healthy SF, and they covered much of his surgery and chemo
but MediCal paid for his radiation and most of his medications.

I'm retired and very secure financially except for health
insurance. I go to work every day at a job that pays only $10.75
per hour for one reason health insurance. I have a fantastic
policy that covers major medical, prescriptions, vision, long term
disability and life insurance...all 100% paid. I'm a pretty self
reliant person I could afford my own policy but the benefit of
work out weighs sitting at home on my ass!

Now my ass is going to be taxed to death for something I don't
need and may be inferior to what i have.
 
351Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Mon, Mar 22, 2010, 21:37
There's no reason to think you are going to lose your insurance, or be taxed for it, TF. If you've already got a great policy there is virtually no chance it will change.

In fact, if it is through a tribal council, it might not even be affected by the new law.
 
352Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Mon, Mar 22, 2010, 21:39
I came across this interactive web page which is supposed to tell people how the bill would affect them. I haven't really poked at it too much (it is slowing down my machine like crazy) But others might find it useful.
 
353Tree
� � � ID: 248472317
� � � Mon, Mar 22, 2010, 21:44
TF -

i'll say it again - you're complaining about a government run health care program, the expansion of government, and the "failure" of Medicaid, while your sons care by Medi-Cal is exactly that?
 
354Boldwin
� � � ID: 362262121
� � � Mon, Mar 22, 2010, 21:51
The VAT is the solution the Debt Commission is going to come up with. - B7

One of many future taps drilled into we, the money tree.

The phony republicans on the commission will also decide to give Obama bipartisan cover just as the healthcare summit was designed to give the appearance of...

...for embracing the idea of carbon taxes. In otherwords Alan Simpson, the crusty cantancerous conservative sounding phony will cheerlead for Obama raising energy costs for Americans thru the roof in the name of deficit reduction.

Besides the deliberate marxist damage to the free market system it is also another avenue to spread the big government tax increases out among multiple non-income tax vehicles. An Illinois signature move.
 
355sarge33rd
� � � ID: 280311620
� � � Mon, Mar 22, 2010, 23:33
Well, I'll have insurance of sorts in a couple months. $50/wk....of course it's a 5k ded and then 70/30. Still, a far cry better than nothing and MUCH preferable to the 1k/m premium recent employers have quoted me.


The right in this country, just cant seem to understand it. Like the Dems in the 80s, they are their own worst enemies atm.
 
356Texas Flood
� � � ID: 7101698
� � � Tue, Mar 23, 2010, 00:18
Sarge you don't have medical care through the VA? My dad is 83
and a WWII Vet and gets all of his prescriptions and many other
services through our local VA office.

Tree, Medicaid dosen't have to be a failure and neither does any
other social program. It's just that our government tends to be
corrupt, irresponsible and incompetent in matters that relate to
tax payer money.
 
357Texas Flood
� � � ID: 7101698
� � � Tue, Mar 23, 2010, 00:30
351, ya know Perm you may be right. Our business is part of the
Odawa Nation which is a sovereign nation and does not have to
abide by many of the white mans laws. Taxes in particular. Our
local tribes businesses pay virtually no federal or state income tax
but they are required to donate a small percentage of gaming
receipts to the local community.
 
358sarge33rd
� � � ID: 280311620
� � � Tue, Mar 23, 2010, 06:52
I'll leave VA's limited resources to those who need them. Disabled, retirees and the like. As a non-retiree/non-disabled, I come up low on the priority list anyway.
 
359sarge33rd
� � � ID: 280311620
� � � Tue, Mar 23, 2010, 07:55
An admission by Rep leadership, that they mischaracterized, deliberately, the health care reform legislation?


David Frum, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, the conservative research organization, said Republicans had tried to defeat the bill to undermine Mr. Obama politically, but in the process had given up a chance of influencing a huge bill. Mr. Frum said his party�s stance sowed doubts with the public about its ideas and leadership credentials, and ultimately failed in a way that expanded Mr. Obama�s power.

...

�When our core group discover that this thing is not as catastrophic as advertised, they are going to be less energized than they are right now,� Mr. Frum said.


from this msnbc link:

link
 
360Pancho Villa
� � � ID: 29118157
� � � Tue, Mar 23, 2010, 10:38
I agree with Frum's assessment. Republicans have painted themselves into a corner, not just as an opposition party, but as a party willing to say anything in order to create a 'Waterloo' moment for Obama( just ask Jim and Scott Matheson).
It should be very telling that the stock market rose after the bill passed, led by the health care sector. Investors, a huge percentage of which are conservatives, tend to be more pragmatic about this issue, and less influenced by the gloom and doom propaganda esposed by what passes as political conservatism, which has descended into an embarrassing abyss of obstinate opposition.

A big part of the optimism among investors can be traced to Obama's ability to create a public/private partnership with some of the key players in the health care industry.

Some aspects of this bill utterly fail to address certain issues.

For all the talk of lowering Americans' health care costs, experts say the bill doesn't regulate premium increases or reform a medical system that focuses more on expensive diagnostics and treatment rather than prevention.

This is one area where Republicans could have stepped up to the plate and participated in crafting a better bill, instead of insisting that legislation start from scratch. It's become all to apparent that crafting a comprehensive bill was not on the Republican agenda, because that would be seen as an Obama victory, something that couldn't be tolerated even if in this country's best interests. Even more irritating is the elitist rhetoric coming from right wing pundits who are constantly raving about elitists, such as
John Hawkins.

Without question, people who zealously guard their freedoms, love their country, and want a better future for their children lost a big battle on Sunday. Yes, Republicans in the House fought skillfully and won the battle with the public, but the legislative chicanery, bribery, and utter disdain for the will of the people won the day for the Left.

Utter disdain of the will of the people?

The 'will of the people' elected Obama president, and health care reform was a major part of his platform. Thinking that the 'will of the people' includes only those who read your columns and agree with your position what is really utter disdain for the will of the people.

There are 300 million Americans. John Hawkins, never elected to any position in his life, has the arrogance to presume he represents the will of the people. As Frum points out,

�When our core group discover that this thing is not as catastrophic as advertised, they are going to be less energized than they are right now�

 
361boikin
� � � ID: 532592112
� � � Tue, Mar 23, 2010, 11:22
It should be very telling that the stock market rose after the bill passed, led by the health care sector.

i think you can also add in that there is since of relief that is over. investors don't deal with uncertainty. A good bill or a bad bill a bill passed is better than one being constantly being debated. I am sure the market would have gone up If the bill had failed.

For all the talk of lowering Americans' health care costs, experts say the bill doesn't regulate premium increases or reform a medical system that focuses more on expensive diagnostics and treatment rather than prevention.

the reason this was not addressed in the bill was there was no easy solution. If you want to live you always want the newest and best and that is always going to cost more. If you want to find a cancer the size of pen head you are going to need the most expensive diagnostics. For these reasons I think in the end 10 years out we look back and see that this bill had little effect on system. On a whole it will have net positive effect for the general public.

I agree in general with you PV about the republicans but I also agree with SZ in post 337. I think they had to fight. Now if they had written this bill in pieces and still sat there and just said no then that would have been a problem.

A side note about treatment rather than prevention there is actually no evidence that actually shows that prevention saves money. I guess if you get sick and die it is cheaper than staying partially sick your whole life.
 
362walk
� � � Dude
� � � ID: 32928238
� � � Tue, Mar 23, 2010, 11:55
Benefit of the doubt reasoning: The will of the people was also swayed by heavy, heavy mischaracterization and fear tactics of repubs about the bill. We are a nation of many fearful folks. It's not appropriate to use fear as a means to pass a bill like healthcare, although there's real fear there (death, bankruptcy, illness), but the loss of freedom, socialism, communism, marxism, and whatever other isms portrayed has eventual through the HRA, I think swayed a lot of public opinion. IN this case, we gave the public a flu shot...no one wants one, but it's likely gonna do more good for ya than bad.
 
363Pancho Villa
� � � ID: 29118157
� � � Tue, Mar 23, 2010, 11:56
I am sure the market would have gone up If the bill had failed.

Possibly, but the point made is there were that passage of the bill would signal the destruction of America via a government takeover of one sixth of the economy represented by the health care industry.

If the bill actually represented such claims, do you seriously think that health care stocks would have led a market rally? The public/private relationship that Obama adroitly managed to preclude the legislation included concessions and compromises from both sides that allayed the fears from the industry that opponents insisted didn't exist, being completely focused on distortional propaganda like that espoused by John Hawkins.

 
364Boldwin
� � � ID: 362262121
� � � Tue, Mar 23, 2010, 12:16
At first insurance companies will see profits as the cash of twenty million new customers hits their coffers and this prospect is leading to the market result you see.

However the same savvy investors who got in early on this, will be getting out early when insurance companies are forced to take on clients who only buy the insurance after they get sick.

This will eventually force the insurance companies out of this market which is Obama's desired endgame.
 
365Boldwin
� � � ID: 362262121
� � � Tue, Mar 23, 2010, 12:19
no one wants one, but it's likely gonna do more good for ya than bad. - Walk
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. - C. S. Lewis

 
366bibA
� � � ID: 202582311
� � � Tue, Mar 23, 2010, 12:58
However the same savvy investors who got in early on this, will be getting out early when insurance companies are forced to take on clients who only buy the insurance after they get sick.


I am getting more and more confused. Yesterday you said that those not paying 12K a yr for insurance were headed to jail. Now I gotta ask you, how are those you refer to as not having insurance until after they get sick able to avoid the gray bar hotel in the first place?
 
367walk
� � � Dude
� � � ID: 32928238
� � � Tue, Mar 23, 2010, 13:17
Oh quit it. Tyranny shmiranny. Please. And no one wants the insurance companies to go out of biz. We want them to stop making huge profits at the expense of the health of others. There is a middle ground. Why does everything have to be so black and white?
 
368Boldwin
� � � ID: 362262121
� � � Tue, Mar 23, 2010, 13:32
Why does everything have to be so black and white?

Because the lust for power of those for whom marxist principles are a religion, is a bottomless pit.
 
369Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Tue, Mar 23, 2010, 13:33
True. No one is disputing that. What we are disputing is that it need be applied to Barack Obama.

 
370Boldwin
� � � ID: 362262121
� � � Tue, Mar 23, 2010, 13:37
biba, last I heard they scaled back the penalty from jail time to @ a $2,000 fine for starters.

At least I hope that's correct. It's not sustainable and after they eliminate private insurance you can be sure they will go back to making prison your other option.
 
371Boldwin
� � � ID: 362262121
� � � Tue, Mar 23, 2010, 13:42
PD

You just go on blythely ignoring the fact that every intellectual influence in his past and the czars he keeps appointing are marxists, as if it were some kind of insignificant coincidence.
 
372Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Tue, Mar 23, 2010, 14:00
And you continue to try to make him a marxist by proxy. You continue to have nothing on the guy directly, and try to point out a guy who died in 1972 of whom the the GOP is now desperately trying to emulate.
 
373DWetzel
� � � ID: 33337117
� � � Tue, Mar 23, 2010, 14:00
There's a big difference between blithely ignoring it and making the determination that those willing to spew such garbage are not worth paying attention to. I suspect that everyone on this board is well into the latter category.
 
374Boldwin
� � � ID: 362262121
� � � Tue, Mar 23, 2010, 14:04
This was the original language. I'll see how it has changed if it has.
 
375Boldwin
� � � ID: 362262121
� � � Tue, Mar 23, 2010, 14:17
I don't know how reliable this is but here is supposedly the final formulation...
It all comes down to this: the reconciliation bill before Congress sets the penalty for failing to buy individual insurance in 2014 at $95 or 1 percent of annual income, whichever is greater, rising to $695 or 2.5 percent by 2017. (Those earning less than 300 percent of the federal poverty line face flat dollar figures, those above, percentages of income.)
Of course there is a history of these things getting revisited after the controversial bill gets passed and tackling the most unpopular details later.
 
376Mith
� � � ID: 58136177
� � � Tue, Mar 23, 2010, 15:44
Americans by 9 percentage points have a favorable view of the health care overhaul that President Obama signed into law Tuesday, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds, a notable turnaround from surveys before the vote that showed a plurality against it.
By 49%-40% those surveyed say it was "a good thing" rather than a bad one that Congress passed the bill. Half describe their reaction in positive terms, as "enthusiastic" or "pleased," while about four in 10 describe it in negative ways, as "disappointed" or "angry."

 
377biliruben
� � � ID: 461142511
� � � Tue, Mar 23, 2010, 16:49
But 19% are "epithet-spewin' death-threatenin' angry!"

Time to double the secret service.

The only bright spot is that 16 of that 19% are evangelicals, who consider this Armageddon, and are started to come around as they realize that end-times are what they've been praying for!
 
378biliruben
� � � ID: 461142511
� � � Tue, Mar 23, 2010, 17:09
Speaking of death-threats, This one is the most unlikely I have seen. Baldwin's soulmate of sorts, I guess.
 
379Boldwin
� � � ID: 362262121
� � � Tue, Mar 23, 2010, 17:14
Push polls are obviously alive and well at the USA Today.
 
380Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Tue, Mar 23, 2010, 17:19
When something comes up to challenge you, you slam the messenger? Nice.

The fact is that the push polling has almost exclusively been done on the "kill the bill" side of this issue. When the specific parts of the bills are explained support actually rises.

You can really only bury the truth so long. And on this issue, the only consistency to be had from the Right is that they consistently try to manipulate public opinion polls so as to obtain results which match their already-held beliefs.

 
381biliruben
� � � ID: 461142511
� � � Tue, Mar 23, 2010, 17:21
Your slur is false.

Survey Methods

Results are based on telephone interviews with 1,005 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted March 22, 2010, as part of Gallup Daily tracking. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is �4 percentage points.

Interviews are conducted with respondents on land-line telephones and cellular phones.

In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.

Polls conducted entirely in one day, such as this one, are subject to additional error or bias not found in polls conducted over several days.


Yes. I understand how unfathomable this is, but only a small minority are as angry as you are that your brothers will be able to get health insurance.
 
382Boldwin
� � � ID: 362262121
� � � Tue, Mar 23, 2010, 18:03
Let me get this right. You are using a disclaimer admitting that question wording can skew a poll as proof that this isn't a push poll.

Huh?
 
383Tree
� � � ID: 248472317
� � � Tue, Mar 23, 2010, 18:12
You are using a disclaimer admitting that question wording can skew a poll as proof that this isn't a push poll.

perhaps if you knew what the definition of a "push poll" was, you'd see the difference. then again, you've shown to not know the difference between "for profit" and "non-profit", so perhaps it's just par for the course.
 
384Boldwin
� � � ID: 362262121
� � � Tue, Mar 23, 2010, 18:29
Weeee!
The dynamics of a selection spiral work like this: A health plan gets worse risks (higher-cost individuals) than it anticipated in its original rate setting, and so has to increase premium rates to provide adequate revenue to cover these higher costs. However, raising the rates changes the entire cost/benefit equation, and so the rate increase will cause some individuals to drop their coverage -- and those who do drop are more likely to be the lower-cost individuals in the pool. As a result, the health plan winds up with a pool of risks even worse than the one it started with, with premiums that again need to be increased to cover the new, higher costs. This sort of spiral can quickly get out of control and lead to the collapse of the insurance pooling mechanism.
 
385Boldwin
� � � ID: 362262121
� � � Tue, Mar 23, 2010, 18:31
Moderator:

I can either give Tree's post any number of uncivil slams it richly deserves or you can give it the treatment it deserves.
 
386biliruben
� � � ID: 461142511
� � � Tue, Mar 23, 2010, 18:42
re 384 - we are actually seeing this right now. Hence the 39% rate increase in Cali, and also the reason why the mandate is essential.

Problem solved. Glad to have you on-board.
 
387Boldwin
� � � ID: 362262121
� � � Tue, Mar 23, 2010, 19:59
Well no, unlike Obama's plan you could't hold off getting insurance until you are diagnosed with an expensive illness.
 
388biliruben
� � � ID: 461142511
� � � Tue, Mar 23, 2010, 20:04
Well which way to you want it? Stiff penalties or no stiff penalties? You can't have it both ways.

As you know, I'm for burning the health insurers down and paying for this all through taxes.
 
389Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Tue, Mar 23, 2010, 20:07
Under the plan just passed, those under 30 (and some few others) can purchase catastrophic insurance. This would, presumably, cover "expensive illnesses."
 
390sarge33rd
� � � ID: 280311620
� � � Tue, Mar 23, 2010, 20:31
blatantly stolen from a right-wing buddy of mine on another forum:

The health care overhaul will extend coverage to 30 million people who are uninsured, or, as Walmart calls them, employees........
 
391Boldwin
� � � ID: 362262121
� � � Tue, Mar 23, 2010, 21:12
Well which way to you want it? Stiff penalties or no stiff penalties? You can't have it both ways.

I'm for government keeping it's incompetent hands off of it of course.

I'm just pointing out that every person who tries to claim that this isn't guaranteed to eliminate private insurance is just plain wrong at best, and disingenuous.
 
392Boldwin
� � � ID: 362262121
� � � Tue, Mar 23, 2010, 21:16
BTW, I see that 2% profit margin for the insurance companies really bothers you. But not the profit margins of the tort lawyers.
 
393Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Tue, Mar 23, 2010, 21:21
The private insurance companies were very happy with the bill. So I guess they don't know what is good for them.

2% profit margin sounds like another projection. Nevertheless, 2% is pretty damn good considering the billions of dollars we're talking about.
 
394Boldwin
� � � ID: 362262121
� � � Tue, Mar 23, 2010, 21:22
Ya'know, the kind of profits which allow one man to personally finance a presidential bid. How about being horrified by that?
 
395Boldwin
� � � ID: 362262121
� � � Tue, Mar 23, 2010, 21:28
PD

So when you invest some of your retirement funds in an insurance stock and they report a 2% profit, your thots turn to disinvesting from those greedheads?
 
396Boldwin
� � � ID: 362262121
� � � Tue, Mar 23, 2010, 23:11
It is black and white.
 
397Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Tue, Mar 23, 2010, 23:18
Just a tip: I never watch youtube videos for political information. Link to some written words if you want. Otherwise, I'm just going to assume that you are linking to a video editorial.

Meanwhile, your meme-of-the-day attempts to cheer on higher insurance company profits over people they should be covering seem misplaced, at best.

In this particular case, I'm happy to take the insurance companies word over yours.
 
398Building 7
� � � ID: 574402017
� � � Tue, Mar 23, 2010, 23:22
It will be cheaper to pay the fine than to buy the insurance.

You can then buy the insurance if you get really sick and they will have to cover you.

This will leave insurance companies with a pool of really sick people, while the healthy people are not paying in.

This will cause insurance companies to go bankrupt.

 
399Boldwin
� � � ID: 362262121
� � � Tue, Mar 23, 2010, 23:37
You can't make it simple enuff for them.
 
400Building 7
� � � ID: 574402017
� � � Tue, Mar 23, 2010, 23:50
Exactly. I figured one big paragragh would be too much.
 
401Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Wed, Mar 24, 2010, 01:26
Heh. How many people do you think it would take to try for a free ride to "cause insurance companies to go bankrupt"?

In 2009, the top ten health insurers made profits of over $10 trillion. What do you think will happen first:

-you and your free ride buddies bankrupt insurance companies

or

-insurance companies spend 1% of their net profits for one year and change the law to increase the penalties for the freeloaders

?

You guys are pro-capitalism, yes? Do you really think insurance companies, in the wake of the SCOTUS decision giving them unfettered free speech rights to influence lawmakers, will willingly go bankrupt?

You guys sound like a bunch of high schoolers who just discovered penny stocks and are going to make millions before you are 25...
 
402biliruben
� � � ID: 16105237
� � � Wed, Mar 24, 2010, 03:24
Until this last decade or so, insurers generally were a staid industry which generally paid out more than they brought in. They were able to do this because they made more than enough in investment income sitting on giant pots of premiums.

This makes sense: these folks aren't really producing anything of value. They aren't taking any unpredictable risks. Why should we, as a society, reward these companies in ways comparable to companies on the cutting edge of innovative technologies, services or products?

I could see re-insurers for catastrophic loss such as hurricane or earthquake getting a more meaty profit due to outsized risk, but health insurers? Why? What's the justification? They are bean-counters and should be paid as such, or outlawed entirely.
 
403Frick
� � � ID: 48239247
� � � Wed, Mar 24, 2010, 08:39
In 2009, the top ten health insurers made profits of over $10 trillion.

Was this hyperbole or do you have a source?

Citigroup is a bank but also does insurance and their total assets were 1.93 trillion in 2009.

 
404sarge33rd
� � � ID: 280311620
� � � Wed, Mar 24, 2010, 09:03
not answering for PD, but I came across this pretty quickly:

link

Insurer profits increased even in the midst of the current recession. Last week, during a hearing before the House Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee, WellPoint admitted that it increased premiums to keep up with medical costs and maintain a 2% profit. The company�s 2009 fourth quarter net income �was more than $2.7 billion, a 727 percent increase from the fourth quarter of last year� � even as membership declined by some 4 percent.

Membership DECLINES 4% yet net income CLIMBS 727%?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?


Nah, we didnt need this bill.
 
405Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Wed, Mar 24, 2010, 09:36
Yikes--I meant billion, not trillion. My mistake. The argument still holds, however.

When you are talking about that much money (made per year) it gets to be pretty stupid. According to Forbes, the biggest insurance company, UnitedHealth Group had over $5 billion in cash on hand in 2009.
 
406Boldwin
� � � ID: 362262121
� � � Wed, Mar 24, 2010, 09:37
Dingle slips and reveals the point of the bill, control of the people.
 
407sarge33rd
� � � ID: 280311620
� � � Wed, Mar 24, 2010, 09:41
Just out of curiosity Boldwin...what is ANY piece of legislation (establishment of a law), if not to influence peoples actions? (ie control the choices made and decisions acted upon?)

Is not the law against murder for ex, an exercise in "control" of the populace?

In and of itself, when taken in context, "control" is not an automatically sinister thing.
 
408Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Wed, Mar 24, 2010, 09:52
That was obviously a mistake. A verbal typo. It doesn't even really make sense in context, since he was talking about the effort needed to put together the programs required under the law.

Pretty sad how far some people will reach.

Meanwhile, while acknowledging the bounce in the USA Today poll, Nate Silver argues for a little caution in overstating the poll. I'd add: Especially by the Left who scoffed at the polling previous to the vote.
 
409Richard
� � � Dude
� � � ID: 204252420
� � � Wed, Mar 24, 2010, 09:55
Sarge (#404) I'm not defending Wellpoint but their 4th qtr 2009 numbers were skewed by the sale of their NextRX subsidary to Express Scripts for $4.675 Billion. Wellpoint actually collected less in premiums from the insured in 2009 ($56.4 billion) than they did in 2008 ($57.1 billion). That one time large gain from a major sale of their assets makes a 4th Qtr 2009 to 4th Qtr 2008 comparison look pretty outrageous but that was probably the point in cherry picking those numbers.

Wellpoint's Financials
 
410sarge33rd
� � � ID: 280311620
� � � Wed, Mar 24, 2010, 09:57
Valid point Richard and one I should have delved further into to find on my own.
 
411boikin
� � � ID: 532592112
� � � Wed, Mar 24, 2010, 10:59
It will be cheaper to pay the fine than to buy the insurance.

You can then buy the insurance if you get really sick and they will have to cover you.

This will leave insurance companies with a pool of really sick people, while the healthy people are not paying in.

This will cause insurance companies to go bankrupt.


or they just do what any smart business does they charge more to cover their increasing costs....and guess what you are right back where you started people complaining about the system.
 
412Building 7
� � � ID: 471052128
� � � Wed, Mar 24, 2010, 11:52
This must be what Biden was talking about when he said....We will control the insurance companies or we will own the insurance companies. He did manage to leave the F-bomb out of that statement , though.
 
413Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Wed, Mar 24, 2010, 13:23
Taking a break from writing my presentation. This money quote gave me a bit of a laugh.
 
414sarge33rd
� � � ID: 280311620
� � � Wed, Mar 24, 2010, 16:44
This is going WAY too far

Concern about possible violence escalated Wednesday after a severed gas line at the home of a Democratic lawmaker's brother was discovered.

The slashed gas line leading to a propane tank at the home of Bo Perriello was found Tuesday, one day after Tea Party activists posted the address online and suggested that opponents of the reform bill should "express their thanks" to Rep. Tom Perriello, D-Va.


 
415biliruben
� � � ID: 461142511
� � � Wed, Mar 24, 2010, 17:05
Terrorism and attempted murder? All in a day's work for the "True American Heroes"!
 
416sarge33rd
� � � ID: 280311620
� � � Wed, Mar 24, 2010, 17:18
or as Sarah Palin calls them, "real Americans"
 
417biliruben
� � � ID: 461142511
� � � Wed, Mar 24, 2010, 17:58
Almost certainly staged by those crazy dems.
 
418Texas Flood
� � � ID: 7101698
� � � Wed, Mar 24, 2010, 19:11
Did William Ayers switch sides?
 
419Pancho Villa
� � � ID: 29118157
� � � Wed, Mar 24, 2010, 19:35
Did William Ayers switch sides?

Let's see. Ayers radical position was based on a horrific war where this country dropped millions of tons of bombs on a 3rd world country and sent thousands of our own young men there to die via the draft. A country, btw, that was absolutely no threat to the security of this nation.


This act of violence was predicated on providing health care to fellow Americans.

I'm missing the analogy.
 
420Tree
� � � ID: 248472317
� � � Wed, Mar 24, 2010, 20:06
I'm missing the analogy.

there's no analogy. it's more of a comment that those on the Right believe the Right can do no wrong - even death threats and attempted murder are acceptable.

i've been suggesting on these boards for awhile that the hate speech and hints at violence from the Right were going to lead us to a new Civil War, and i still believe we are inching closer to that each and every day.
 
421sarge33rd
� � � ID: 280311620
� � � Wed, Mar 24, 2010, 20:20
What in the hell, does W Ayers have to do with a rightwingnut flying his plane into a Federal Building and killing government workers to protest taxes?

Or the shooting of a docotr who provides abortions?

Or severing the gas line, of a relative of an elected official, who voted for a bill you opposed?

Has the right wing of this country gone COMPLETELY FVCKING BANANAS?
 
422DWetzel
� � � ID: 33337117
� � � Wed, Mar 24, 2010, 22:36
Um, yes?
 
423Boldwin
� � � ID: 362262121
� � � Thu, Mar 25, 2010, 11:10
That is part of the communist genius of Antonio Gramsci that the opposition never really can put their finger on the exact point at which the counter-revolution must be mounted.
 
424bibA
� � � ID: 26232512
� � � Thu, Mar 25, 2010, 13:03
When you say counter-revolution do you mean overthrow the democracy of the US? If not, just what would you advocate instead?
 
425Boldwin
� � � ID: 362262121
� � � Thu, Mar 25, 2010, 13:05
Rolling back creeping socialism seems reasonable.
 
426bibA
� � � ID: 26232512
� � � Thu, Mar 25, 2010, 13:18
Somehow mounting a counter-revolution, and rolling back creeping socialism just sound a bit different.

In any case, how do you advocate this be done? Elections? Or some other way?
 
427Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Thu, Mar 25, 2010, 13:21
Eric Cantor: The Democrats are fanning the flames of violence!!!

Next up: "She practically begged me to hit her!"
 
428DWetzel
� � � ID: 33337117
� � � Thu, Mar 25, 2010, 13:23
Well, you saw how she was dressed, she was clearly asking for it.
 
429Boldwin
� � � ID: 362262121
� � � Thu, Mar 25, 2010, 13:28
In any case, how do you advocate this be done? Elections? Or some other way?

Why I do believe you are baiting me.

I am not an activist. I am not advocating any political action. I believe a viscious global dictatorship on the order of Orwell's 1984 is coming.

I do not advocate ANY political act except to become a citizen of God's kingdom and drop out of the political system.

Those of you who cannot run to that refuge had better ask yourself what you will do. A delaying tactic is about the only option you've got in my estimation.
 
430Razor
� � � ID: 57854118
� � � Thu, Mar 25, 2010, 13:36
I do not advocate ANY political act except to become a citizen of God's kingdom and drop out of the political system.

You post more than anyone on the Politics forum.
 
431Boldwin
� � � ID: 362262121
� � � Thu, Mar 25, 2010, 13:49
It is beyond your ability to keep track of what I don't post. None of us can keep track of what everyone else has said.

I don't advocate actions as a rule. I point out where you are objectively wrong. I point out what the biased MSM kept from you.

Quit chasing off the conservatives and I'll retire.
 
432DWetzel
� � � ID: 278201415
� � � Thu, Mar 25, 2010, 14:17
I hereby resolve to quit doing that thing which I haven't actually been doing but which you think I've been doing.

Have fun in your retirement. Hope it's somewhere warm.
 
433Razor
� � � ID: 57854118
� � � Thu, Mar 25, 2010, 14:22
I would actually say the exact opposite is true, as is the case in this very thread. Much of the effort on this board is sadly wasted on disputing "news" sources who don't report any factual news at all and debating with those who have no ability to determine what an objective right or wrong looks like. I've long since figured out that this was a waste of time.
 
434boikin
� � � ID: 532592112
� � � Thu, Mar 25, 2010, 14:44
as is the case in this very thread. Much of the effort on this board is sadly wasted on disputing "news" sources who don't report any factual news at all and debating with those who have no ability to determine what an objective right or wrong looks like.

ill second this statement, then again if it was not boldwin would anything get posted, that was not link from the huffington post?

Quit chasing off the conservatives and I'll retire.

you guys do have tendency to pretty much attack anyone who has a differing opinion from the majority and really has put a damper on legitimate debate.
 
435DWetzel
� � � ID: 278201415
� � � Thu, Mar 25, 2010, 14:58
Um, it's called "supporting one's views". Is that no longer acceptable?

Intelligent conservatives with good logical arguments are always welcome. Sometimes I might even agree with them! At the very least, if someone comes in with good logical arguments, they're going to get good logical rebuttals and debate.

But come in with the vapid Chicken Little "end of America" crap and expect everyone to nod like a bobblehead doll, and, well, you get what you deserve.
 
436Razor
� � � ID: 57854118
� � � Thu, Mar 25, 2010, 15:35
would anything get posted, that was not link from the huffington post?

This is easily refutable. Scroll over the links from the last 50 posts in this thread.
 
437Boldwin
� � � ID: 362262121
� � � Fri, Mar 26, 2010, 02:08


CBS poll 3/25/10
 
438Boldwin
� � � ID: 362262121
� � � Fri, Mar 26, 2010, 02:09
Note 41% of Democrats!
 
439Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Fri, Mar 26, 2010, 02:23
Put me down as one. The more the GOP challenges this, the better the chances of Democrats holding onto their seats.

While you are at it, put me down as strongly supporting Sarah Palin as the GOP presidential nominee in 2012.

Meanwhile, we don't get to see the actual questions and breakdowns by party on that CBS poll, which allows them to get really sloppy without having to bother pointing to actual results to come up with poorly drafted conclusions:

About one in two Americans say Mr. Obama has kept a campaign promise in getting the legislation passed. Forty-three percent, including three in four Republicans and a slim majority of independents, say he has forced through an unpopular agenda.

This is known as a false comparison, so it would have been nice to see the actual questions and responses. Either he kept a promise or not (clearly, he kept the promise, regardless of whether you thought the promise was a good idea or not). He may (or may not) have forced through an unpopular agenda, but this is a completely separate matter from whether he promised to do exactly what he actually delivered on.

Fifty percent said they were disappointed that the bill did not have support from both parties

Count me in this as well. The overview, however, frames this as a judgment on the bill, which misses the mark as well. Many Dems are disappointed the GOP decided not to support efforts to rein in some of the more egregious actions of health insurance companies.
 
440Boldwin
� � � ID: 362262121
� � � Fri, Mar 26, 2010, 02:47
Because CBS has a history of doing push polls for the GOP...sure.
 
441Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Fri, Mar 26, 2010, 02:51
Your bias toward skipping content and spinning first is annoying.

You want to respond to the content you have an opportunity to do so. Please try to avoid answering political charges I didn't make in lieu of that.
 
442walk
� � � ID: 342381316
� � � Fri, Mar 26, 2010, 06:21
NYT, Paul Ryan: What Repubs need to do to reform healthcare reform

The other side. I cannot find too many, if any mentions, of how these ideas help insure those without insurance.

 
443boikin
� � � ID: 532592112
� � � Fri, Mar 26, 2010, 10:52
would anything get posted, that was not link from the huffington post?

This is easily refutable. Scroll over the links from the last 50 posts in this thread.


well since boldwin was posting in this thread it actually refutes nothing. but you did stir my couroisity so i am going through all the links posted in the thread and seeing where they did come from. hopefully have some results on that.

 
444Boldwin
� � � ID: 362262121
� � � Fri, Mar 26, 2010, 11:01
BTW Debbie Schlussel gets all her traffic from HuffPo so she doesn't count.
 
445Tree
� � � ID: 248472317
� � � Fri, Mar 26, 2010, 12:50
more terrorism from the Right on the Health Care vote..
 
446boikin
� � � ID: 532592112
� � � Fri, Mar 26, 2010, 14:25
Ok so here are the results, this is probably way off topic now but you might find it interesting:

Total 65 1
talkingPoints 6 0.09230769
cnn 4 0.06153846
NYT 4 0.06153846
government 3 0.04615385
msn 3 0.04615385
theatlantic 3 0.04615385
WSJ 3 0.04615385
youtube 3 0.04615385
538 2 0.03076923
breitbart 2 0.03076923
gallup 2 0.03076923
Huffington 2 0.03076923
politico 2 0.03076923
sltrib 2 0.03076923
thinkprogress 2 0.03076923
washingtonpost 2 0.03076923
wikipedia 2 0.03076923
yahoo 2 0.03076923
boston 1 0.01538462
businessweek 1 0.01538462
cbs 1 0.01538462
commonwealmagazine 1 0.01538462
democraticunderground 1 0.01538462
fox 1 0.01538462
gawker 1 0.01538462
nationalreview 1 0.01538462
Pollster 1 0.01538462
publicola 1 0.01538462
rawstory 1 0.01538462
theHill 1 0.01538462
thenewamerican 1 0.01538462
TNR 1 0.01538462
townhall 1 0.01538462
usatoday 1 0.01538462
 
447boikin
� � � ID: 532592112
� � � Fri, Mar 26, 2010, 14:29
I also broke them down into source info so was it online source, TV, print,...Clearly they are all online sources but if it came from cnn.com it got listed as TV.

online 32 0.49230769
other 6 0.09230769
print 21 0.32307692
TV 6 0.09230769
Total 65 1

I also broke it down on by if the item was a news report, an editorial, info, or poll.

editorial 29 0.44615385
info 9 0.13846154
news 23 0.35384615
poll 4 0.06153846
Total 65 1
 
448biliruben
� � � ID: 461142511
� � � Fri, Mar 26, 2010, 15:27
Cool! I'd like to introduce you to the round function however!

All this says is we have our favorite aggregators who add their own spin. PD LOVES (LOVES!!!) TPM.

I'm partial to the NYT and Reality-based community., as well as a bunch of other sites, which have become increasingly more local, I have noticed. I used to hate local politics. When did that change?

PV likes huffy and and bunch of other sites.

Baldwin hangs around sites I feel dirty even spending time in. Twisted, vile, racist conspiracy sites with some really nasty creatures lurking in them. I really try to avoid these sites on the left and the right. That's why I try and also limit my exposure to TPM and KOS. They like to preach to the choir a bit too much.
 
449Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Fri, Mar 26, 2010, 17:04
I do like TPM. But I like it because not only do they have their own original reporting, but it is a good place to find stuff originating elsewhere.

I might link to an Andrew Sullivan piece (for instance) which is actually a quote from a David Frum piece.
 
450biliruben
� � � ID: 461142511
� � � Fri, Mar 26, 2010, 17:05
Speaking of Frum, he got tossed from his institute for being far too reasonable. What can you do.
 
451Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Fri, Mar 26, 2010, 17:07
Just to bring that point around: The best internet political sites work not because they do strictly original reporting (which is what newspapers, journals, and magazines do). But they are a sort of clearinghouse for additional information, some of which might be coming from sites with a viewpoint typically 100% different from the one you get the link from.

The danger from bias isn't that it exists or that it manifests itself in linking. The danger is when it becomes so self-referential that it is merely an echo chamber in which the members zealously guard each others' right to be in there and untouched by outside influences.
 
452Boldwin
� � � ID: 362262121
� � � Fri, Mar 26, 2010, 18:44
Sorta like what too many have tried to turn this place into.
 
453Nuclear Gophers
� � � ID: 7115138
� � � Fri, Mar 26, 2010, 18:54
I guess the New York Times has figured out that health care is about spreading the wealth. This was written by David Leonhardt on March 23,2010.
Im sorry, I just cant figure how to link it. Any help for this computer illiterate (me) would be appreciated.:)



For all the political and economic uncertainties about health reform, at least one thing seems clear: The bill that President Obama signed on Tuesday is the federal government�s biggest attack on economic inequality since inequality began rising more than three decades ago.
Over most of that period, government policy and market forces have been moving in the same direction, both increasing inequality. The pretax incomes of the wealthy have soared since the late 1970s, while their tax rates have fallen more than rates for the middle class and poor.

Nearly every major aspect of the health bill pushes in the other direction. This fact helps explain why Mr. Obama was willing to spend so much political capital on the issue, even though it did not appear to be his top priority as a presidential candidate. Beyond the health reform�s effect on the medical system, it is the centerpiece of his deliberate effort to end what historians have called the age of Reagan.

Speaking to an ebullient audience of Democratic legislators and White House aides at the bill-signing ceremony on Tuesday, Mr. Obama claimed that health reform would �mark a new season in America.� He added, �We have now just enshrined, as soon as I sign this bill, the core principle that everybody should have some basic security when it comes to their health care.�

The bill is the most sweeping piece of federal legislation since Medicare was passed in 1965. It aims to smooth out one of the roughest edges in American society � the inability of many people to afford medical care after they lose a job or get sick. And it would do so in large measure by taxing the rich.

A big chunk of the money to pay for the bill comes from lifting payroll taxes on households making more than $250,000. On average, the annual tax bill for households making more than $1 million a year will rise by $46,000 in 2013, according to the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research group. Another major piece of financing would cut Medicare subsidies for private insurers, ultimately affecting their executives and shareholders.

The benefits, meanwhile, flow mostly to households making less than four times the poverty level � $88,200 for a family of four people. Those without insurance in this group will become eligible to receive subsidies or to join Medicaid. (Many of the poor are already covered by Medicaid.) Insurance costs are also likely to drop for higher-income workers at small companies.

Finally, the bill will also reduce a different kind of inequality. In the broadest sense, insurance is meant to spread the costs of an individual�s misfortune � illness, death, fire, flood � across society. Since the late 1970s, though, the share of Americans with health insurance has shrunk. As a result, the gap between the economic well-being of the sick and the healthy has been growing, at virtually every level of the income distribution.

The health reform bill will reverse that trend. By 2019, 95 percent of people are projected to be covered, up from 85 percent today (and about 90 percent in the late 1970s). Even affluent families ineligible for subsidies will benefit if they lose their insurance, by being able to buy a plan that can no longer charge more for pre-existing conditions. In effect, healthy families will be picking up most of the bill � and their insurance will be somewhat more expensive than it otherwise would have been.

Much about health reform remains unknown. Maybe it will deliver Congress to the Republicans this fall, or maybe it will help the Democrats keep power. Maybe the bill�s attempts to hold down the recent growth of medical costs will prove a big success, or maybe the results will be modest and inadequate. But the ways in which the bill attacks the inequality of the Reagan era � whether you love them or hate them � will probably be around for a long time.

�Legislative majorities come and go,� David Frum, a former speechwriter for President George W. Bush, lamented on Sunday. �This health care bill is forever.�

�

Since Mr. Obama began his presidential campaign in 2007, he has had a complicated relationship with the Reagan legacy. He has been more willing than many other Democrats to praise President Reagan. �Reagan�s central insight � that the liberal welfare state had grown complacent and overly bureaucratic,� Mr. Obama wrote in his second book, �contained a good deal of truth.� Most notably, he praised Mr. Reagan as a president who �changed the trajectory of America.�

But Mr. Obama also argued that the Reagan administration had gone too far, and that if elected, he would try to put the country on a new trajectory. �The project of the next president,� he said in an interview during the campaign, �is figuring out how you create bottom-up economic growth, as opposed to the trickle-down economic growth.�

Since 1980, median real household income has risen less than 15 percent. The only period of strong middle-class income growth during this time came in the mid- and late 1990s, which by coincidence was also the one time when taxes on the affluent were rising.

For most of the last three decades, tax rates for the wealthy have been falling, while their pretax pay has been rising rapidly. Real incomes at the 99.99th percentile have jumped more than 300 percent since 1980. At the 99th percentile � about $300,000 today � real pay has roughly doubled.

The laissez-faire revolution that Mr. Reagan started did not cause these trends. But its policies � tax cuts, light regulation, a patchwork safety net � have contributed to them.

Health reform hardly solves all of the American economy�s problems. Economic growth over the last decade was slower than in any decade since World War II. The tax cuts of the last 30 years, the two current wars, the Great Recession, the stimulus program and the looming retirement of the baby boomers have created huge deficits. Educational gains have slowed, and the planet is getting hotter.

Above all, the central question that both the Reagan and Obama administrations have tried to answer � what is the proper balance between the market and the government? � remains unresolved. But the bill signed on Tuesday certainly shifts our place on that spectrum.

Before he became Mr. Obama�s top economic adviser, Lawrence Summers told me a story about helping his daughter study for her Advanced Placement exam in American history. While doing so, Mr. Summers realized that the federal government had not passed major social legislation in decades. There was the frenzy of the New Deal, followed by the G.I. Bill, the Interstate Highway System, civil rights and Medicare � and then nothing worth its own section in the history books.

Now there is.
 
454Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Fri, Mar 26, 2010, 19:09
It isn't about spreading the wealth. It is about spreading the opportunity.

The United States has the best health care money can buy, and it is about time that access to it widened to include all citizens.
 
455Frick
� � � ID: 48239247
� � � Fri, Mar 26, 2010, 19:20
We have the most expensive health care is a fact. The best health care is open for debate. What metric other than spending are we ranked first?
 
456Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Fri, Mar 26, 2010, 19:25
If you have the money to pay for it, you have the best health in the world.

The fact that we have unequal access to it (which reflects in poor infant mortality, life expentancy, etc) doesn't mean that those who have full access to it don't do well. They do. The problem hasn't been the health care it has always been access to it.
 
457Boldwin
� � � ID: 362262121
� � � Fri, Mar 26, 2010, 20:07
I guess the New York Times has figured out that health care is about spreading the wealth. - NG

In theory. It's about spreading the dearth around equally in reality.
 
459biliruben
� � � ID: 16105237
� � � Fri, Mar 26, 2010, 20:09
Every single thing our government does or doesn't do is redistribution of wealth. Nearly always it's poor to rich, because it's the rich who the power to influence legislation.

Every generation or two, we are fortunate to have it go the other way.
 
460Mith
� � � ID: 58136177
� � � Fri, Mar 26, 2010, 20:36
I love how some of these people act like they just discovered the term "spreading wealth" in 2008.
 
461biliruben
� � � ID: 16105237
� � � Sat, Mar 27, 2010, 00:39
No, I don't consider you a racist, Baldwin. Your interpretation of the bible pretty much requires you to be bigoted against homosexuals, but you freely admit that.

All I was saying is that when I wade into some of the comments sections of the sites you link to, there are some evil bastards lurking there, including racists.

Similarly, though usually not as offensively, I avoid the KOS comments, and generally all websites of that ilk for the same reason: they delight, revel and foment hate.
 
462Boldwin
� � � ID: 362262121
� � � Sat, Mar 27, 2010, 06:33


I can't say I've never seen it anywhere but I can't remember anyone N-bombing at any of my regular sites let alone doing so with the approval of the general population, not that the comments sections are all that important.

Show me an example when you run across it, and I don't mean these manufactured outrage fits over fine interpretation.

There must be a billion posts over at Freerepublic. I don't go there regularly cause it's an echo-chamber but it is probably the most important conservative social network on the net. I don't get the feel that anyone could get away with N-bombing there without becoming a pariah and I don't think I am being overgenerous.
 
463Nuclear Gophers
� � � ID: 7115138
� � � Sat, Mar 27, 2010, 10:02
454-Thats your new spin on saying "to bad for them".
 
464DWetzel
� � � ID: 33337117
� � � Sat, Mar 27, 2010, 11:32
NG: Are you in favor of emergency rooms being required to treat all incoming patients?
 
465Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Sat, Mar 27, 2010, 11:34
Nope.

However, like the whole "spread the wealth around" phrase from the 2008 campaign, my use of "too bad for them" has gotten distorted, starting from the very first reaction.

Am I bummed that there is a very slight uptick in the tax rates on dividend income for the most wealthy Americans to help pay for a program (Medicare) which will bankrupt this country? Nope. And neither should you.
 
466Building 7
� � � ID: 232122716
� � � Sat, Mar 27, 2010, 17:12
Conyers Cites Imaginary Constitutional Clause in Defense of Obamacare

Under several clauses, the good and welfare clause and a couple others,� Conyers responded. �All the scholars, the constitutional scholars that I know � I�m chairman of the Judiciary committee, as you know � they all say that there�s nothing unconstitutional in this bill and if there were, I would have tried to correct it if I thought there were.�

There is no such clause in the Constitution. Conyers made it up.
 
467Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Sat, Mar 27, 2010, 17:18
I'm sure his response would have been a little more measured if not for the format and place.

Nevertheless, what he says or not has nothing to do with the constitutionality of the bill.
 
468Boldwin
� � � ID: 362262121
� � � Sat, Mar 27, 2010, 20:45
He meant the general welfare clause. He was handicapped. No staff[er] to lean on.
 
469Boldwin
� � � ID: 362262121
� � � Sat, Mar 27, 2010, 22:09
If only these guys ran everything! Then we'd be happy.
 
470Nuclear Gophers
� � � ID: 7115138
� � � Sun, Mar 28, 2010, 07:32
This is in Bloomberg Business week today.
As PD says wait till the people really find out whats in this bill. To bad for them.

By Amy Thomson and Ian King

March 26 (Bloomberg) -- AT&T Inc. will book $1 billion in first-quarter costs related to the health-care law signed this week by President Barack Obama, the most of any U.S. company so far.

A change in the tax treatment of Medicare subsidies triggered the non-cash expense, and the company will consider changes to the benefits it offers current and retired workers, Dallas-based AT&T said today in a regulatory filing.

AT&T, the biggest U.S. phone company, joins Caterpillar Inc., AK Steel Holding Corp. and 3M Co. in recording non-cash expenses against earnings as a result of the law. Health-care costs may shave as much as $14 billion from U.S. corporate profits, according to an estimate by benefits consulting firm Towers Watson. AT&T employed about 281,000 people as of the end of January.

�Companies like AT&T, that have large employee bases, are going to have higher health-care costs and, therefore, lower earnings unless they can negotiate something or offer less to their employees,� said Chris Larsen, an analyst at Piper Jaffray & Co. in New York, who rates AT&T shares �overweight� and doesn�t own any himself.

AT&T previously received a tax-free benefit from the government to subsidize health-care costs for retirees, who would otherwise be on a Medicare Part D plan. Under the new bill, AT&T will no longer be able to deduct that subsidy.

�As a result of this legislation, including the additional tax burden, AT&T will be evaluating prospective changes to the active and retiree health-care benefits offered by the company,� the carrier said in the filing.

3M Cost

AT&T�s announcement was followed about an hour later by 3M, the St. Paul, Minnesota-based maker of products ranging from Post-It Notes to respiratory masks. 3M said it expects a one-time expense of $85 million to $90 million after tax, or about 12 cents a share, in the first quarter because of the new law, according to a statement. 3M had about 75,000 employees as of Feb. 5.

Michael Coe, a spokesman for the carrier, declined to comment. Peter Thonis, a spokesman for Verizon Communications Inc., which also employs more than 200,000 people, declined to comment.

New York-based Verizon, the second-largest U.S. phone company, told employees in a note after the law was signed that the tax will make the subsidy less valuable to employers like Verizon and so �may have significant implications for both retirees and employers.�

AT&T rose 9 cents to $26.24 at 4 p.m. in New York Stock Exchange composite trading. The shares have fallen 6.4 percent this year.

Union Contracts

AT&T employees represented by the Communications Workers of America union have health benefits locked in via contracts that don�t expire until 2012 and 2013, Candice Johnson, a spokeswoman for the union, said in an interview. About 58 percent of the carrier�s workforce is represented by the union, AT&T said in a filing.

Obama signed the health-care reform policy into law on March 23 after a year of pushing the legislation through Congress without a single Republican vote. The new law will be phased in over several years and gives tens of millions of uninsured Americans health coverage. The bill, projected to cost almost $1 trillion, also calls for new taxes on the highest earners and fees on health-care companies.

Much of the public is still unsure about the plan with four in 10 Americans in favor of it, according to a Bloomberg National Poll. Obama is planning a follow-up campaign to sell the law -- the biggest change to the health system since Medicare was enacted in 1965 -- to the public.
 
471Nuclear Gophers
� � � ID: 7115138
� � � Sun, Mar 28, 2010, 07:42
No, I dont want some lazy,irresponsible smuck who doesnt have health insurance in front of me when I do have health insurance in an emergency room. Too bad for them.
 
472sarge33rd
� � � ID: 280311620
� � � Sun, Mar 28, 2010, 08:08
...some lazy,irresponsible smuck...

and that if course, describes EVERY single uninsured person in the country. doesnt it NG?
 
473Pancho Villa
� � � ID: 29118157
� � � Sun, Mar 28, 2010, 09:18
I dont want some lazy,irresponsible smuck who doesnt have health insurance in front of me when I do have health insurance in an emergency room

The two times I have visited an ER in the past 10 years, both times actual emergencies with my kids, that's exactly how I was treated by the admitting personnel when I told them I had no insurance; like a lazy, irresponsible smuck.

My former sister-in-law, who is a lazy, irresponsible smuck on Medicaid(I'm raising one of her children) runs to the ER on a regular basis, even if it's just for a headache and she wants some pain pills.
 
474Nuclear Gophers
� � � ID: 7115138
� � � Sun, Mar 28, 2010, 10:11
Ill bet the majority.
 
476Nuclear Gophers
� � � ID: 7115138
� � � Sun, Mar 28, 2010, 10:30
I dont think I am a scumbag I just dont think other people are responsible for paying for other peoples healthcare. People who are rich are responsible for their own family and that is it IMHO. I think an apology is in order.
 
477Boldwin
� � � ID: 362262121
� � � Sun, Mar 28, 2010, 10:36
MITH

A scumbag would be the adviser on the HCR Ezekiel Emanuel writing off the value of life of the newborn, elderly and disabled.
 
479Mith
� � � ID: 58136177
� � � Sun, Mar 28, 2010, 10:49
The death panels already exist. They have always existed. Those decisions are and have been made by faceless administrative bodies in profit-driven corporations.

You know what you can do with your phoney selective outrage.
 
480Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Sun, Mar 28, 2010, 10:59
As PD says wait till the people really find out whats in this bill. To bad for them.

Are you intentionally missing the point? Maybe the real point I'm making is too nuanced? When you continue to intentionally misuse the quote, I get the feeling that the gray of the health care bill doesn't interest you--that you are much more interested in presenting things in easy-to-believe black and white instead.

Even when presenting it that way means changing things around.

With everyone having health insurance now, I guess you no longer have to worry about people without health insurance (but with a more immediate health need) jumping in front of you in the line. No longer is your insurance card some kind of keypass to quick care, and an easy way to differentiate between yourself (merely intellectually lazy these days) and the "lazy, irresponsible."

 
481tree on the treo
� � � ID: 287212811
� � � Sun, Mar 28, 2010, 11:04
I dont want some lazy,irresponsible smuck who doesnt have health insurance in front of me when I do have health

what a vile disgusting sentiment. its akin to someone here saying "i hope you and your family die in a housefire because I think you're a crappy driver and you make the roads dangerous."

you do realize, that many people who don't have insurance are neither lazy nor irresponsible nor dicks (the translation of the word "schmuck" you used), but rather just in a bad situation?

I worked since I was 14 years old....as long as I was legally able to as a kid, and for my entire life every since. when I was laid off from the job I'd had for nearly a decade back in Nov of 2008, I eventually lost my insurance.

I am neither lazy nor irresponsible, but I don't have insurance, so *I* demand an apology.
 
482WiddleAvi
� � � ID: 352232517
� � � Sun, Mar 28, 2010, 11:38
I am guessing NG wants hospitals to be like checking in at the Airlines......We now invite all first class passengers to board first.....
 
483sarge33rd
� � � ID: 280311620
� � � Sun, Mar 28, 2010, 11:55
re 'death panels'

The language in HCR re 'end of life care', was lifted almost directly form the medicare reform act written and passed BY Republican legisators and signed by GWB. If you didnt call them 'death panels' then, you have NO RIGHT, NONE, ZIP; to refer to them as such now. I dont give a shit WHAT Sarah Palin calls them.
 
486DWetzel
� � � ID: 33337117
� � � Sun, Mar 28, 2010, 12:02
You know what, I'll take mine down myself, just to be on the safe side.

However, I think "vile, disgusting sentiment" is a completely fair thing, so I'll repeat it. Because yes, I think that people who traipse into the emergency room and think they are more important than the next person because they have $$$$ and the other person doesn't, are vile, disgusting people. And since that's the sentiment you've expressed, I'll let you draw the appropriate conclusions.
 
487Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Sun, Mar 28, 2010, 12:10
I just dont think other people are responsible for paying for other peoples healthcare.

In many circles, this is called "insurance." It doesn't sound like you want to get rid of insurance, however.
 
488sarge33rd
� � � ID: 280311620
� � � Sun, Mar 28, 2010, 12:23
A scumbag would be the adviser on the HCR Ezekiel Emanuel writing off the value of life of the newborn, elderly and disabled.

A scumbag would be the adviser on the HCR Ezekiel Emanuel right writing off the value of life of the newborn, elderly and disabled financially impoverished.


Please enlighten me as to the difference between those two statements.
 
495Tree
� � � ID: 248472317
� � � Sun, Mar 28, 2010, 14:00
471 as well. the whole issue started with that offensive and disgusting post.

My answer in my post was a generalization to a question that was asked to me.

mine was too. anyone who expresses the sentiment in post 471, is, an a$$.

people who don't have insurance aren't dicks, despite your belief that they are.

you might have felt it was a generalization, but it's not. it's offensive, and it's personal.
 
496walk
� � � ID: 342381316
� � � Sun, Mar 28, 2010, 14:19
Awful sentiments, NG. Very selfish view of mankind. I sure hope someday someone you or someone you care about does not fall on really bad times and is need of a hand beyond their friends and family. I thought our country was founded on values of both personal responsibility AND giving to others. It's what supposedly separates us from lower life forms. Guess not. It is your opinion, but IMO, it's a stinky one.
 
497Nuclear Gophers
� � � ID: 7115138
� � � Sun, Mar 28, 2010, 14:39
496I have personal responsibility to me and my family which I take care of thank you very much. I give to my church and I am associated in non profit organizations. Thank you very much.
If I pay my insurance so that I can be taken care off, I sure do want taken care of before some person that doesnt pay gets taken care of.
 
498tree on the treo
� � � ID: 287212811
� � � Sun, Mar 28, 2010, 15:28
you also have a responsibility to your fellow human being. and you should choose your words more carefully...

people without insurance aren't necessarily lazy irresponsible dicks, despite your proclaimation as such.
 
499Nuclear Gophers
� � � ID: 7115138
� � � Sun, Mar 28, 2010, 15:33
If you read my post I said that I am associated with Non profit organizations. Its in the second sentence in post 497. I can only spread myself so far.

The post that I asked to be deleted are STILL THERE
 
500sarge33rd
� � � ID: 280311620
� � � Sun, Mar 28, 2010, 15:38
and they SHOULD still be there.

They express a general sentiment, about an attitude of "me first", which has become FAR to pervasive in our country today.

As for your expectation of being taken care of before "some schmuck", I expect health care services to be provided in order of need as determined by proper triage and NOT in regard to who has the fattest wallet.
 
501Nuclear Gophers
� � � ID: 7115138
� � � Sun, Mar 28, 2010, 15:54
Tree-If you want to categorize yourself in that group so be it. I can honestly say I cant put myself in that group.

Being called a scumbag and a selfish uncaring ass is not expressing a general sentiment. Its a smear.

I have the fattest wallet because I am responsible.
 
502sarge33rd
� � � ID: 280311620
� � � Sun, Mar 28, 2010, 15:56
REALLY? No luck involved at all huh? No nothing at all, NOTHING...except what you did or didnt do? Never one time "right place at the right time" applies?

I call BS NG. Pure, unadulterated BS.
 
505Mattinglyinthehall
� � � ID: 37838313
� � � Sun, Mar 28, 2010, 16:07
I'm big enough to admit when I'm being uncivil. I can't refer to the policy on civility and respect to confimr that I violated the policy because it isn't opening for me when I click the link. But I imagine I have and if so the offending posts should be deleted if a moderator feels its apropriate to do so according to the guidelines given to him/her by Guru.

That said I do recall that Guru said he'd give leeway to the moderators in making that judgement, and that among other things to consider is the typical behavior of the offending poster, and I don't think I'd consider myself chronicly uncivil or disrespectful. So maybe I just get a pass this time.

Either way, it doesn't matter to me. I'll stand by it whether it's deleted or not.
 
506Boldwin
� � � ID: 362262121
� � � Sun, Mar 28, 2010, 16:09
MITH, any uninsured person with dysentery who shows up at an emergency room is going to get treated and you know it, so your point in #478 is moot while your insult is all too loud.
 
508Boldwin
� � � ID: 362262121
� � � Sun, Mar 28, 2010, 16:18
I have to side with Tree on this one.

He's much too ineffectual to be called a dick.
 
509Nuclear Gophers
� � � ID: 7115138
� � � Sun, Mar 28, 2010, 16:37
So I would have to lump the smears put on me as the same smears put on the democratic congressmen last week. Tree and Mith and The TEA PARTY people in the same group. You decry them, lets see you decry yourself. You are sounding just as hateful as the tea party people. You are mad when the N word and the gay word are thrown around but its ok to call someone a selfish uncaring ass and scumbag. Hypocracy(sp) at its best.
I answered the question by D Wetzel honestly. And I would think that was a gotcha question. But I am an honest guy so your not going to get me with a gotcha.
There are a lot of other ways to disagree with a post I have posted, but dont smear me.

502-Hard work brings good luck.

 
510sarge33rd
� � � ID: 280311620
� � � Sun, Mar 28, 2010, 16:40
Hard work does not always bring 'good luck'. Sometimes, bad things happen to good people and they have done nothing to deserve the bad breaks, nor did they fail to do what was right and responsible in order to preclude them. They just happen. To imply, for even a moment, that such people are inevitably lazy and/or irresponsible, and/or to claim to deserve medical care before them JUST because your wallet is thicker than theirs....NG...such a position *IS* selfish, thoughtless, asinine and a lot of other not so kind things.
 
511Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Sun, Mar 28, 2010, 16:48
Took a nap. The attitudes are still here too, I see.

I'll blink 'em in a sec. Calm down everyone.
 
512Mattinglyinthehall
� � � ID: 37838313
� � � Sun, Mar 28, 2010, 16:58
506 so your point in #478 is moot

Who's arguing that hospitals leave people out on the curb to die of dysentary? The point is that NG doesn't want the uninsured person with dysentary treated in the emergency room. It's that opinion which is the target of my comment.

Here's a very general statment explaining the personal standard upon which that comment was based which does not refer specifically to any person and therefore hopefully does not violate the policy on civility and respect:

Anyone who would prefer to see a person die of an easily treatable disease rather than receive medical services for free is a scumbag in my book.
 
513Mattinglyinthehall
� � � ID: 37838313
� � � Sun, Mar 28, 2010, 17:00
I have a hard time believing that many non-sociopathic people disagree.
 
514Mattinglyinthehall
� � � ID: 37838313
� � � Sun, Mar 28, 2010, 17:12
You are mad when the N word and the gay word are thrown around but its ok to call someone a selfish uncaring ass and scumbag

Anyone else have a problem telling the difference between being called a faggot or the n-word and calling out the opinion described in #512 as selfish or uncaring or that of a scumbag?
 
515Boldwin
� � � ID: 362262121
� � � Sun, Mar 28, 2010, 17:40
Anyone who wants to guarantee bad medicine to everyone just so no one but congressmen have good insurance is a...
 
516Mattinglyinthehall
� � � ID: 37838313
� � � Sun, Mar 28, 2010, 17:50
Nice try. We'll see if such a guarantee is the result of policy I support. Of course I support the policy because I don't believe the hyperbolic outcome you describe will come to pass as a result.

However there's no wait and see necessary with regard to whether the described opinion happens to be held by anyone here. So it's not at all the same thing.

But it's notable that you have no interest in condemning the opinion that uninsured people should die of dysentary.

Shall I put you down as in agreement, Boldwin?
 
517Boldwin
� � � ID: 362262121
� � � Sun, Mar 28, 2010, 17:52
Reread #506 until it dawns on you what a phony argument you are making.
 
518Mattinglyinthehall
� � � ID: 37838313
� � � Sun, Mar 28, 2010, 17:54
Reread #512 until it dawns on you that you grossly misunderstand me.
 
519DWetzel
� � � ID: 33337117
� � � Sun, Mar 28, 2010, 17:59
"Anyone who wants to guarantee bad medicine to everyone just so no one but congressmen have good insurance is a... "

Ooh, ooh, let me guess!!!

Venutian?

Neptunian?

'Cause I know you aren't talking about THIS planet.

 
520DWetzel
� � � ID: 33337117
� � � Sun, Mar 28, 2010, 18:03
Oh, and I do applaud NG for at least being honest. And it is a bit of a gotcha question, designed to clearly illustrate either hypocrisy or douchebaggery. Take your pick.

You can either say "yes, I can at least handle that", which is (of course) Socialized Medicine!!!!1!!!!!11111!!!!!! and now we're just haggling about how far you want to go, or you can at least be consistent and admit that you don't give a crap whether your fellow citizens live or die.

He's chosen the consistent route, at least. At that point there's not much else to do than throw up your hands and admit that we're having a moral argument (which I'm completely confident NG is on the wrong side of), and I guess agree to disagree.

If the right-wingers would just all admit that they feel like NG and say "no, I don't want to spend $1.99, even if it means that guy serving me in the McDonalds drive through will die instead of live", then we can at least be honest about what we're debating.
 
521Nuclear Gophers
� � � ID: 7115138
� � � Sun, Mar 28, 2010, 18:17
Since I retired I got a job working at McDonalds. I am sitting here laughing D Wetzel. Im not laughing at you I am laughing at the analogy, please dont feel offended.

I noticed there is no comment on the hypocracy I posted in 509. I didnt think there would be. Democrats play by their own rules.lol
 
522Mattinglyinthehall
� � � ID: 37838313
� � � Sun, Mar 28, 2010, 18:21
I noticed there is no comment on the hypocracy I posted in 509.

You missed #514. And the definition of hypocrisy.
 
523Nuclear Gophers
� � � ID: 7115138
� � � Sun, Mar 28, 2010, 18:28
Sorry I missed 514

Yes one being called the n word or faggot is a democrat and the one being called a scumbag or uncaring ass is a republican. duh this isnt rocket science.
 
524Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Sun, Mar 28, 2010, 18:31
There is a world of difference between being called a nigger and an uncaring scumbag. It has nothing to do with the receiver's political party.
 
525DWetzel
� � � ID: 33337117
� � � Sun, Mar 28, 2010, 18:31
No, it really isn't rocket science. Which is why we're all mystified that you don't understand what the difference is.
 
526Mattinglyinthehall
� � � ID: 37838313
� � � Sun, Mar 28, 2010, 18:37
I'm not mystified. This is the same person who boasted that he supports Sarah Palin because he regards style over substance.
 
527J-Bar
� � � ID: 12232819
� � � Sun, Mar 28, 2010, 20:28
Wow, I missed a doozy (and I probably shouldn't comment but I am not that smart). Long before this bill people were able to be seen in the ER that did not have insurance for whatever ailed them regardless of whether it was an actual emergency (no change with this passage. Where I feel the frustration of NG comes in is because those with insurance (paid for) make conscious decisions prior to going to the ER. Then when you get there the ER is full of non emergencies (mostly Government funded insurance recipients) and you are forced to wait (with a real emergency) until a bed opens up. Hence major frustration that can add to an already stressful situation. I think some major reforms should have taken place in the government funded insurances to penalize bad behavior and then the hard feelings may not be near as prevalent. Kind of the same feeling one gets behind the SNAP recipient that buys $300 dollars of food and has to thumb through 3 or 4 hundred dollars bills to find a twenty to pay for the pack of cigarettes. True we don't have the whole story but there can still be that visceral feeling.
 
528jedman
� � � Dude
� � � ID: 315192219
� � � Sun, Mar 28, 2010, 21:15
5 years ago I was taken to the emergency room with a splitting
headache that would not go away after two vicadin. I sat there
for over 2 hours waiting to be seen with what was initially
diagnosed as an aneurysm but ended up being a non-
aneurysmic brain hemmorhage for which I was helicoptered to
Stanford Medical Center (cost me $11,500 out of pocket for not
being an approved Blue Shield helicopter company) where I
spent a week. My wife was begging them to see me, but I was
not considered critical enough to be seen immediately. I feel
very fortunate that nothing worse happened to me.
18 months ago I was struck by a golf ball coming off the driving
range, which knocked me to the ground. I didn't lose
consciousness, but had blood all over me. I went to emergency
with my bloody shirt and a bandage on my head, but I was fine.
As soon as they saw blood, I was immediately jumped to the
front of the line and seen immediately, just the opposite of what
should have happened from my first visit.
I absolutely believe that those with the most pressing needs
should be seen first, regardless of insurance or not. Hospitals
are supposed to save lives, not worry about who has the right to
be seen first based on insurance.
Getting people out of the emergency rooms that don't belong
there is a completely separate problem.
I am dubious of the health plan, but I am going to let my
judgment pass until reality is here.
 
529DWetzel
� � � ID: 33337117
� � � Sun, Mar 28, 2010, 21:17
J-Bar, I think you have it pretty well pegged, honestly.

"Long before this bill people were able to be seen in the ER that did not have insurance for whatever ailed them regardless of whether it was an actual emergency (no change with this passage."

Right. And most people agree that asking people to provide proof of insurance (or an indeterminately large wad of cash, I guess) while waddling into the ER is a good thing. (I'd rather not have them checking my bank account for information while I'm bleeding out, thanks.)

And yes, it's abused--generally by people who don't have any other options. I'd much rather see those people get "regular" care, for a number of reasons, one of them being that it will reduce the stress on emergency rooms. Emergency room care is also (obviously) quite a bit more expensive than a regular doctor's visit, so for every person that ties up the ER doctors for 20 minutes (which we're all paying for NOW, and as noted nothing changes there), I'd rather pay to have five of them go to the regular doctor. It's both more effective for everyone involved, and cheaper overall. I don't understand what's not to like there.

And yes, there will be people, even AFTER this, who will continue to use the emergency rooms for things that emergency rooms are not designed for. Those people can hopefully die in a smelting accident. The problem is that right now there are two types of people using the ER for minor illnesses: those who do it because they're selfish stupid pricks, and people who do it because they don't have any other choice. I'd much rather remove the second category from the list before trying to tell the first group to get the hell out.

Of course, it's possible to just say, as NG has, nope, I don't want any of those filthy serfs clogging up MY emergency room, screw 'em! It's a self-consistent position, at least. It's equally consistent to drive by someone having a heart attack on the side of the road and not even roll down the window to ask if they need help. I think that "selfish jerks" is a completely valid word to describe those people.
 
530sarge33rd
� � � ID: 280311620
� � � Sun, Mar 28, 2010, 21:40
OK, we all KNOW, ERs will see/treat people w/o regard to insurance.

I would like to THINK, we would all agree that the order of care needs to be based PURELY upon proper medical triage.

So what happens?

The way it works now, those w/o insurance get seen and those with get billed astronomical amounts for a Tylenol. Paid by the insurance, who in turn charges a premium which allows for a profit.

So what happens if the now uninsured, suddenly HAVE insurance?

The payouts shouldnt change ALL that much, since the same time is cinsumed by providers. The same supplies are consumed in the providing of care, and the same costs are then born by insurance. The DIFFERENCE, is that there are more people paying into the premium pool.

So what SHOULD happen, is your premium SHOULD drop. If it doesnt, dont blame the previously uninsured. Blame the greed driven CEOs at the home offices of one of THE richest industries in the world.
 
531Building 7
� � � ID: 232122716
� � � Sun, Mar 28, 2010, 21:55
This emergency room mandate from the federal government to provide care is not a health care problem, but an accounting problem. The people that cannot pay should have their bill sent to the federal governemnt where it is paid. It's their idea, they can pay for it. This bill is then attached to the person's income tax, where it will follow them around until death. This will allow hospitals to charge normal prices for things, instead of $5 for a band-aid to cover the expenses of the non-paying. Since the federal government is now directly paying for the poor, they can move the non-emergency cases to a clinic or some cheaper option, and pay for it over there. Illegal aliens will have their bill deducted from any foreign aid going to that country.
 
532sarge33rd
� � � ID: 280311620
� � � Sun, Mar 28, 2010, 22:01
"The government can pay for it..."

How? The unemployed, pay no taxes, since they have no income. So your 'accounting problem", remains unchanged and unsolved.

This reform, keeps insurance companies from canceling a policy. It keeps them from placing lifetime limits on claims. It prevents them from not insuring someone, because of previous illness/injury. It provides a tax penalty if you will, for those who decline to comply with obtaining insurance. It provides tax breaks for businesses, to help offset costs for providing employee benefits.

All in all, it is a good START to addressing the issue. It stops well short of where it needs to get, but it starts the ball rolling in the right direction.
 
533walk
� � � ID: 342381316
� � � Mon, Mar 29, 2010, 06:40
Nice pt #520. It is a moral argument. If it were a cost argument, we would not go to war without a good cause or a budget. It's moral, and there at the nucular gophers and the nancy pelosi's. I fall on the pelosi side myself. I think it's kinder. Some folks are lazy; I think more are unfortunate. I'd like to give them a break, beyond my donations to non-profit orgs (and I work for one, too).
 
534Building 7
� � � ID: 471052128
� � � Mon, Mar 29, 2010, 08:58
Some people travel the country watching wrestling events.

Some people save for a rainy day.
 
535Tree
� � � ID: 248472317
� � � Mon, Mar 29, 2010, 11:33
Some people travel the country watching wrestling events.

Some people save for a rainy day.


and some people talk out of their butthole, without knowing the situation.

i was unemployed in NYC for nearly a year. my rainy day savings were pretty solid - otherwise, i wouldn't have been able to survive for that long in a lot of cities, much less NYC.

don't talk to me about rainy days, because i was more prepared than most people.

and as for my trip this weekend, interesting you should bring it up.

i had begged out. it's an annual tradition for my friends and i - we've gotten together every year for the last eight at Wrestlemania Weekend. Friends from not just around the US, but from Ireland, Scotland, England, Australia, Malta, and a few other places.

when one of my friends who is in a pretty high tier regarding income, offered to help out, i told him i couldn't accept his help. ultimately though, he was persistent, and said it was important for me to be there, not just because my friends wanted me there, but because after the year or so that i'd had, it would do be good to be there.

so, i had help to make this trip. My way was mostly paid for, in exchange for some social media related stuff for this person.

while it's very different, it's also relative to the bigger issue here, in that it's someone who is in a position to lend a helping hand to someone else who might need it.

as human beings, it's the right thing to do. to be selfless, instead of selfish.

anyway, thanks for giving me a chance to draw that comparison.
 
536Building 7
� � � ID: 471052128
� � � Mon, Mar 29, 2010, 14:58
I got to this word..... "butthole" ...and quit reading.
 
537Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Mon, Mar 29, 2010, 15:11
#536: That's a pretty good policy, now that I think about it.
 
538J-Bar
� � � ID: 12232819
� � � Mon, Mar 29, 2010, 18:02
#535 and you very eloquently expressed the debate in a nutshell. Human charitable actions vs government mandates. I appreciate the personal story of the right's stance that man is basically good and gives in situations of need and that the government safety net does not have to be all encompassing and invasive. Again I reiterate that the debate is not zero government funded health care vs. single payer health care (which seems to be the argument from the left) but some level of government assisted health care and single payer option.
 
539Mattinglyinthehall
� � � ID: 37838313
� � � Mon, Mar 29, 2010, 18:25
Again I reiterate that the debate is not zero government funded health care vs. single payer health care (which seems to be the argument from the left) but some level of government assisted health care and single payer option.

Oh please! Take another look at the rhetoric coming from the right. The majority of it is capitalism vs socialism with no acknowledgement of any gray area. Did you miss Nuclear Gophers' posts #471 and #476? Boldwin's #13?
 
540biliruben
� � � ID: 461142511
� � � Mon, Mar 29, 2010, 18:32
Single payer? Boba Fett? Where? Where?

Have I somehow missed some major new legislation?
 
542boikin
� � � ID: 532592112
� � � Tue, Mar 30, 2010, 09:42
Single payer? Boba Fett? Where? Where?

does this mean it is time to start a new thread:

Healthcare Debates III - The return of the GOP
 
544biliruben
� � � ID: 16105237
� � � Tue, Mar 30, 2010, 09:54
He he. Good idea.
 
545biliruben
� � � ID: 461142511
� � � Tue, Mar 30, 2010, 17:02
For all you cut-throat, conscienceless libertarians out there looking to game the system, Frant runs the numbers on the penalties for circumventing the mandate.
 
546Building 7
� � � ID: 471052128
� � � Tue, Mar 30, 2010, 17:13
How is following the rules....."gaming the system"?

The problem with a 2400 page bill is that you have 2400 pages of potential loopholes.



 
547biliruben
� � � ID: 461142511
� � � Tue, Mar 30, 2010, 17:34
How do you define gaming the system? I think almost by definition, you follow the rules but not the intent.
 
548Building 7
� � � ID: 471052128
� � � Tue, Mar 30, 2010, 17:37
The intent should correlate to the rules. It's not my fault they didn't do that. Don't try to make me the evil one for their incompetence. Go ahead and call it gaming the system. I'll call it following the rules....which it is.

 
549biliruben
� � � ID: 461142511
� � � Tue, Mar 30, 2010, 17:39
Sheesh. Go look up "gaming the system".
 
550boikin
� � � ID: 532592112
� � � Tue, Mar 30, 2010, 17:44
I did look it up and surprisingly little is written about it, but as billi says Gaming the system means using the rules, policies and procedures of a system against itself for purposes outside what these rules were intended.
 
552biliruben
� � � ID: 461142511
� � � Tue, Mar 30, 2010, 18:04
Thanks, Boikin. I didn't call anyone "evil", btw. I simply couldn't, in good conscience, free-ride off of my fellow citizens if I had the means and ability to pay my own way.
 
553Building 7
� � � ID: 471052128
� � � Wed, Mar 31, 2010, 09:20
For all you cut-throat, conscienceless libertarians out there looking to game the system

Is this something evil people do or good people do? I'm not going to do wordsmithing. It was unwarranted negative comments towards Liberterians. More Dems will take this prudent course of action than Liberterians.

Do you take any deductions on your taxes. You don't havee to take that deduction. You can pay more. And you probably have the means to pay more. Now your fellow citizens will have to make up the difference.

My guess, is that your employer pays for your health care. So this "sacrifice" to not pay the fine is really no sacrifice at all is it? Just a bunch of self-reported, altruistic hot air.

Why did they put it in there if nobody is supposed to use it?

 
554biliruben
� � � ID: 16105237
� � � Wed, Mar 31, 2010, 09:35
First of all, that I wrote that mainly tongue-in-cheek, but I know that doesn't come across well on a message board.

But to the extent that I meant it, it's all about intent, B7. It's neither evil or good. It's simply whether you are attempting to use something as it's intended to be used, or trying to circumvent it for individual gain. Tax deductions, unless you are using them fraudulently, are intended to be used.

It comes down to ethics, and that is something every individual must figure out for themselves.
 
555biliruben
� � � ID: 16105237
� � � Wed, Mar 31, 2010, 09:37
And I supplied that link mainly because I thought you (and I wasn't actually thinking about you, just that someone had mentioned gaming the system) wanted more details on how gaming the system would actually work out. I was trying to be helpful.
 
556Tree
� � � ID: 248472317
� � � Wed, Mar 31, 2010, 10:04
Teabonics


 
557biliruben
� � � ID: 16105237
� � � Tue, Apr 06, 2010, 01:59
re: 176 Explaining the double Dip.

The affected companies have already profited from an inequitable provision in the 2003 Medicare prescription drug law. At the time, many employers were already providing drug coverage for their retirees. And to keep them from dropping that coverage, the new law provided doubly sweet subsidies to corporations.

For every $100 the company spends on retiree drug benefits, Medicare sends it a subsidy payment of $28. On top of that, the companies got a rare double tax break. The $28 subsidy is tax-free, and the company was allowed to deduct the entire $100 as a business expense.

The new health care reform law has left the 28 percent subsidy intact and continued to exempt it from taxation. But companies will no longer be allowed to deduct the subsidy as if it were an expenditure of their own.
.

Much ado about nothing, and the market appears to agree.
 
558Boldwin
� � � ID: 535651
� � � Tue, Apr 06, 2010, 08:27
Wow, they just discovered a doozy of a devilish detail in the HCR bill. States are legally liable if someone cannot find a doctor to see them in a timely manner.

With large percentages of doctors promising to no longer see patients at government reimbursement rates, as well as large numbers planning on retiring rather than practice medicine this way, states will all be sued into bankruptcy if they aren't there already.

My guess is that the marxists are hoping to force the states to do their marxist dirty work and legally force doctors to accept any payment level the state dictates.

We also see that the marxists were far worse than merely failing to address tort reform. They were only getting started in rewarding lawyers for sabotaging the system.

I'm taking bets on how soon we see the first medical college go belly up.
 
559Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Tue, Apr 06, 2010, 08:54
Is Massachusetts bankrupt? How many medical colleges in that state have gone out of business?
 
560biliruben
� � � ID: 16105237
� � � Tue, Apr 06, 2010, 08:56
I heard all the docs moved to Canada.
 
561boikin
� � � ID: 532592112
� � � Tue, Apr 06, 2010, 09:51
Wow, they just discovered a doozy of a devilish detail in the HCR bill. States are legally liable if someone cannot find a doctor to see them in a timely manner.

Is there a link for this?
 
562biliruben
� � � ID: 16105237
� � � Tue, Apr 06, 2010, 09:53
Heh.
 
563Boldwin
� � � ID: 535651
� � � Tue, Apr 06, 2010, 10:16
PD

Why do you think Mass voted in someone who would vote against Obamacare? Their trial version isn't working. The doctors are leaving in droves, closing shop, unavailable.
 
564Perm Dude
� � � ID: 47342610
� � � Tue, Apr 06, 2010, 11:42
They voted in Scott Brown because the alternative was dreadful.

Are you of the belief that Massachusetts voters were against the Health Care bill?
 
565Boldwin
� � � ID: 535651
� � � Tue, Apr 06, 2010, 12:13
It was the focal point of the campaign.
 
566Tree
� � � ID: 248472317
� � � Tue, Apr 06, 2010, 12:15
I heard all the docs moved to Canada.

actually, i heard Canada is taking over the US. it's part of the nifty New World Order thing i keep talking about, tied into the Socialist Regime of an African-born president who is slowly but surely making this country a better place (as the statistics are showing) as the IDIOTS run around and scream that the sky is falling.

the only sky that is falling are their stupid little arguments that hold no water for anyone with an iota of rational thinking.

Why do you think Mass voted in someone who would vote against Obamacare?

you really don't pay much attention to the big picture, do you?
 
567Perm Dude
� � � ID: 6357613
� � � Tue, Apr 06, 2010, 14:57
It might have been the only thing you paid attention to in that campaign, but I can assure you that support for health care reform was quite strong among the Democrats and independents which make up the vast majority of MA voters. And one of the reasons it was not stronger is that Massachusetts already enjoy the much-more-liberal Romneycare. Obama's plan wouldn't really change all that much in that state.

Scott Brown won because he was, and is, a liberal Republican coming from a liberal state. And he won despite his opposition to health care reform, mostly because his opponent was an idiot.

Also, the issue ranked (along with health care) as the most important among MA voters is jobs/economy.

It is probably best to stop projecting your own beliefs onto that race--I understand you need a little political Pepto in order to find yourself supporting a guy who supports abortion rights, but this doesn't mean that you need to try to find some retroactive support for yourself.
 
568Boldwin
� � � ID: 634489
� � � Thu, Apr 08, 2010, 18:43
Star Wars
 
569Tree
� � � ID: 248472317
� � � Tue, Apr 13, 2010, 09:00
going back a couple hundred posts, referring to the n-word being yelled at Lewis and others, and the claims of Conservatives that it didn't happen, and those pointed to a youtube video with proof of Its all recorded and available on youtube.

well, apparently not. once again, Conservatives resort to inaccurate video to "prove" a point.

Wrong video of health protest spurs N-word feud

from Faux News showing large crowds at one event while reporting on another, much smaller event; to Baldwin's hero and future felon filmmaker James O'Keefe; and to this, it just shows that many Conservatives have no interest in the truth.

What does the video show? Not much. Indeed, new interviews show that a much-viewed YouTube recording cited as evidence by conservatives was actually shot well after the time in question.
 
570Razor
� � � ID: 57854118
� � � Tue, Apr 13, 2010, 09:22
As I pointed out at the time, if John Lewis said it happened, then it happened. The man is a civil rights hero and has no need to invent racism. I am sure those who called him a liar and assassinated his character with no factual basis feel great about themselves. What an embarrassment those people are.
 
571Boldwin
� � � ID: 11301223
� � � Tue, Apr 13, 2010, 09:44
Yeah, and Pelosi needed to drag a hammer the size of Thor's thru a crowd of Tea Partiers because it was the only way to her office.
 
572Razor
� � � ID: 57854118
� � � Tue, Apr 13, 2010, 09:54
So do you believe that a racial epithet was hurled at John Lewis? And if you do, do you condone of such behavior? Because you seem awfully willing to try to convince others that it didn't happen, or that if it did, it was deserved because a) healthcare reform is so egregious and b) one should know better than to walk through a crowd of American citizens.
 
573Boldwin
� � � ID: 11301223
� � � Tue, Apr 13, 2010, 10:25
I don't believe it for a nanosecond. I also saw another congressman try and inflate a spittle fleck from shouting into a spitting incident play-acting to the capital hill policeman next to him. [who rightfully ignored it][would have been arrested for assault had it been real]

This walk was staged and what they are claiming happened, is what they were hoping for and didn't get.
 
574Razor
� � � ID: 57854118
� � � Tue, Apr 13, 2010, 10:28
On what basis do you disbelieve it?
 
575Boldwin
� � � ID: 11301223
� � � Tue, Apr 13, 2010, 10:41
1) You could hardly have been anywhere on the planet with more cameras trained on you. If it happened it was recorded.

2) The reaction of the play-acting congressman tells me what they were doing there.

3) Congressmen have their own subway system back to their offices and it doesn't run outside the building and thru crowds of their worst enemies.
 
576Seattle Zen
� � � Leader
� � � ID: 055343019
� � � Tue, Apr 13, 2010, 10:43
Don't bother, Razor. In the end, seriously, do you care what Baldwin accepts or believes? If people still get bent out of shape about stories of Vietnam veterans getting spit on 40+ years ago, I would think that the vast majority of Americans were appalled at the slur hurled at Rep. Lewis and that another elected member of our government was spat upon.
 
577Boldwin
� � � ID: 11301223
� � � Tue, Apr 13, 2010, 10:49
Maybe Lewis can send the tape of the incident showing the slur to the smithsonian to join Gate's handcuffs and Jesse Jackson's bloody shirt.

If only there was any evidence. Maybe he can fake it like Jesse after the fact.
 
578boikin
� � � ID: 532592112
� � � Tue, Apr 13, 2010, 11:11
I would think that the vast majority of Americans were appalled at the slur hurled at Rep. Lewis and that another elected member of our government was spat upon.

doubt they actually care.
 
579Tree
� � � ID: 248472317
� � � Tue, Apr 13, 2010, 11:14
Yeah, and Pelosi needed to drag a hammer the size of Thor's thru a crowd of Tea Partiers because it was the only way to her office.

so that's an excuse for the behaviour?

I don't believe it for a nanosecond.

of course you don't. There is no pattern of racist and bigoted behaviour from Conservatives in this nation's history, and certainly not during the Health Care debates, and certainly not on the many signs held up by protesters.

Congressmen have their own subway system back to their offices and it doesn't run outside the building and thru crowds of their worst enemies.

i guess you are excusing the behaviour.



 
580Boldwin
� � � ID: 11301223
� � � Tue, Apr 13, 2010, 11:18
The only behavior on display was hatred for that bill and the way it was passed against the obvious wishes of Americans.
 
581DWetzel
� � � ID: 278201415
� � � Tue, Apr 13, 2010, 11:28
Nothing happened! They were welcomed with open arms! Punch was served!

link
 
582Pancho Villa
� � � ID: 543561115
� � � Tue, Apr 13, 2010, 11:48
against the obvious wishes of Americans.

You mean the real Americans who think in concert with you, not the rest of us bums who simply want the government to take care of us cradle to grave.

Glad I could clarify.
 
588Biliruben movin
� � � ID: 358252515
� � � Tue, Apr 13, 2010, 13:04
A series of gotchas (real or imagined) is not a substitute for
honest debate. It simply serves to obscure places where we
can find common ground, or at least understanding of
opposing viewpoints.

Please skip the gotchas and digs.
 
589Boldwin
� � � ID: 11301223
� � � Tue, Apr 13, 2010, 13:05
Be ready to drag them out or don't make the scurrilous charges in the first place.

Yes, obvious will of the American peaople

This marks the third week since the U.S. House passed healthcare reform on March 21 that the Republicans have tied or led the Democrats. - Gallup
 
590Biliruben movin
� � � ID: 358252515
� � � Tue, Apr 13, 2010, 13:06
Meant to post in the other thread, but same rules apply...
 
591DWetzel
� � � ID: 278201415
� � � Tue, Apr 13, 2010, 13:10
I see your non-health-care-specific poll and raise you a current poll, you know, about health care:

Health care plan gains favor

More Americans now favor than oppose the health care overhaul that President Obama signed into law Tuesday, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds � a notable turnaround from surveys before the vote that showed a plurality against the legislation.

By 49%-40%, those polled say it was "a good thing" rather than a bad one that Congress passed the bill.


3/24/2010.
 
592Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Tue, Apr 13, 2010, 13:16
That just highlights that the thing is in the wrong thread, that's all.

By November, many people will be wondering why the GOP wants to take away health care. If the GOP hasn't gone on to some other issue.
 
593Boldwin
� � � ID: 11301223
� � � Tue, Apr 13, 2010, 13:26
I'll see your ancient poll and raise you a recent one.
Three weeks after Congress passed its new national health care plan, support for repeal of the measure has risen four points to 58%. That includes 50% of U.S. voters who strongly favor repeal. - Rassmusen
 
594bibA
� � � ID: 253451312
� � � Tue, Apr 13, 2010, 13:45
Gotta chuckle at these polls. If one was to believe them, they would see that 49% are in favor of the bill, and that 58% want to repeal it. Something does not add up.
 
595Biliruben movin
� � � ID: 358252515
� � � Tue, Apr 13, 2010, 14:01
I've given up even trying to decipher meaning from
rasmussen. They've lost all crediblility by phrasing their
questions in such a leading and biased way, I've essentially
been forced to ignore their results, as the bear little
resemblance to any of the other results out there.
 
596Biliruben movin
� � � ID: 358252515
� � � Tue, Apr 13, 2010, 14:05
Also, you have to remember that when they use "likely voter"
screens, they are weighting republican responses more
heavily, as they tend to come out more heavily midterms.
Trying to use these as a Gauge of the beliefs of the people
as a whole is therefore highly inappropriate.
 
597Boldwin
� � � ID: 11301223
� � � Tue, Apr 13, 2010, 14:14
I'll go find one Soros paid for.
 
598Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Tue, Apr 13, 2010, 14:16
The word "Soros" is a real time-saver for you, it seems. When in trouble, invoke his name like a talisman.
 
599DWetzel
� � � ID: 278201415
� � � Tue, Apr 13, 2010, 14:26
"I'll go find one Soros paid for."

Might balance out the Rasmussen one back to even.
 
600Tree
� � � ID: 248472317
� � � Tue, Apr 13, 2010, 15:22
My Soros is acting up. I'll have to Clinton my Marxist and hope for a Liberal dose of MSM to clear it up from my Obama.

Otherwise, i might end up with a troll trying to self-loathe in my Ayers.
 
601DWetzel
� � � ID: 278201415
� � � Tue, Apr 13, 2010, 15:34
Jeremiah Wright gives his Chomsky of approvalinsky to your post.
 
602Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Tue, Apr 13, 2010, 15:38
As does the zeitgeist.
 
603Pancho Villa
� � � ID: 543561115
� � � Tue, Apr 13, 2010, 21:35
This marks the third week since the U.S. House passed healthcare reform on March 21 that the Republicans have tied or led the Democrats. - Gallup

The poll might indicate that a majority of Americans disagree with the health care reform bill. But that's not what you said. You said
it was passed against the obvious wishes of Americans.

Maybe it's a dig or a gotcha, but when polls showed that Americans were opposed to war in Iraq or Vietnam, did it translate to say these wars were against the obvious wishes of Americans? No, conservatives characterized those in opposition as America haters. And now they want to make divisions about Americans and 'real' Americans based on support for the health care bill.
The only thing that's obvious to me is a blatant disrespect by conservatives for anyone who dares take a position that differs from theirs, all the while reminding everyone that they are the ones with the guns.

Obama was elected with the obvious wishes of Americans. How does that shoe fit?

 
604Boldwin
� � � ID: 11301223
� � � Tue, Apr 13, 2010, 22:10
The only thing that's obvious to me is a blatant disrespect by conservatives for anyone who dares take a position that differs from theirs

It is entirely true that I disrespect anyone who made it thru the 20'th century and didn't learn enuff about marxism to reject it.

Seeing as you guys can't greet an opinion that differs from yours, without pulling the 'racist' tarbrush out, you don't have any standing to talk about respecting a 'diversity' of opinions.
 
605Boldwin
� � � ID: 11301223
� � � Tue, Apr 13, 2010, 22:16
Well that's over-generalizing. The old-timers don't call me racist but my new mystery religion fan club makes it seem like everyone plays the racist card everytime.
 
606Pancho Villa
� � � ID: 543561115
� � � Tue, Apr 13, 2010, 22:25
You're not a racist. You're an equal opportunity antagonist.
 
607Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Tue, Apr 13, 2010, 22:28
Who continually tries for a good seeding in the injustice olympics.
 
608sarge33rd
� � � ID: 280311620
� � � Tue, Apr 13, 2010, 22:53
roflmao 600 thru 602 are priceless.
 
609Tree
� � � ID: 248472317
� � � Tue, Apr 13, 2010, 22:56
The old-timers don't call me racist

after one of the "old-timers" here posted that you weren't a racist, but rather a bigot, i acquiesced, and retracted my statement that you were racist, because the definition for bigot fits you much better.

i do, however, think it's close, as you seem to defend those with racist views but refusing to indict them, and instead, blaming the messenger.
 
610Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Thu, Apr 15, 2010, 14:19
The FOX News "truthiness" gauge is still a bit off

The disrespect that FOX has for its listeners continues to plummet.
 
611boikin
� � � ID: 532592112
� � � Thu, Apr 15, 2010, 14:31
In all honesty that was 5 months ago, I doubt fox thinks anyone remembers that far back? or cares.
 
612Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Thu, Apr 15, 2010, 14:44
Maybe. But O'Reilly's claim was just yesterday. And the whole thing just reinforces the shabbiness with which FOX treats its viewers.

I'm convinced, more and more, that rather than FOX being a news arm of the RNC that it is actually the other way around. FOX (like all media organizations) exist to describe conflict and it they can't find it they will actually make it up.

News is all about describing conflict of some kind, but FOX has decided that describing actual news in terms people can understand is just too hard, I think.
 
613Mith
� � � ID: 482583111
� � � Thu, Apr 15, 2010, 18:18
Re: #610:

 
614Boldwin
� � � ID: 11301223
� � � Thu, Apr 22, 2010, 08:28
And in the 'So-bad-it's-good' category. Pretty hilarious in a sad kinda way.
 
615Tree
� � � ID: 248472317
� � � Thu, Apr 22, 2010, 08:57
out of curiousity, you are aware that she's a comedian, right?


here, Perez Hilton raves about her


here, she debates her own political beliefs:


unfortunately, she's really not that funny at all.


 
616Tree
� � � ID: 248472317
� � � Thu, Apr 22, 2010, 12:37
one of the reasons Healthcare Reform is urgent:

Exclusive: WellPoint routinely targets breast cancer patients
 
617Boldwin
� � � ID: 11301223
� � � Fri, Apr 23, 2010, 23:01
"When was the last time you heard someone say, 'The help here is way too slow and incompetent. Why don't they hire some civil service people?'" - AC
Just recall that while you clutch your appendix and attempt to hold out for several months.
 
618Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Fri, Apr 23, 2010, 23:04
Yes--health insurance people are waaaay better than civil service people, aren't they?

"...Why don't we hire some private insurance company people, for efficiency sake?" goes over much better, eh?
 
619Boldwin
� � � ID: 183112613
� � � Wed, Apr 28, 2010, 12:24
Naturally the costs were downplayed and now the true costs come into focus.



Costs will increase, not decrease of course.

Millions will lose their employer provided insurance.

Twenty-one million poorest Americans will still be without insurance. So what was the point?
 
620Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Wed, Apr 28, 2010, 12:37
In the short term we all knew (at least, those who read and understood the bill) that costs would increase.

The point of the bill was not to decrease short term costs, but to enroll as many people as possible in health insurance plans while lowering costs in the long term, including extending the viability of Medicare.

That CMMS report acknowledges that Medicare viability has been extended by this law. And both the American Hospital Association and American Medical Association supported the health care bill. They would hardly do so if they believed the pessimistic ten year projections of part of the CMMS report.

This is another example of right wing cherry picking.
 
621weykool
� � � ID: 351422416
� � � Wed, Apr 28, 2010, 13:01
Costs are going to go down?

Since when has the government ever succeeded at controlling costs?
Pure and simple the healthcare bill is nothing more than a welfare bill to transfer money from the working middleclass to nonworking Americans and illegal immigrants.

For most Americans you can count on two things:
You will pay more for healthcare.
You will get less of it.

End of Debate
 
622Mith
� � � ID: 482583111
� � � Wed, Apr 28, 2010, 13:06
For most Americans you can count on two things:
You will pay more for healthcare.
You will get less of it.


The inference that this would not have been true had no healthcare bill been signed is disingenuous. And declaring that such a poor argument "ends" the "debate" is terrible form.
 
623Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Wed, Apr 28, 2010, 13:19
I'm not sure how this transfers anything to illegal immigrants. Perhaps you can explain the scheme?
 
624weykool
� � � ID: 351422416
� � � Wed, Apr 28, 2010, 13:22
I am so upset I wont be getting style points for my post.
So the argument in favor of healcare is that costs were going to triple but with passage of the plan they are only going to double?
Give me a break.

Let me rephrase my debate ending axioms:
Comparing a market based system to the Obama plan:
You will pay more for healthcare.
You will get less of it.
 
625DWetzel
� � � ID: 278201415
� � � Wed, Apr 28, 2010, 13:24
Here's my debate-ending axiom:

You're wrong.

Gee, this is easy!


You might try providing useful facts along with your arguments, weykool. If your entire argument is "this is the way it is beacuse I say so", then it's not worth posting.
 
626Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Wed, Apr 28, 2010, 13:24
The main argument was that thousands of people die a year from lack of health insurance, plus the economic drag on the country of having less healthy people working.

Also, Medicare costs were unsustainable.

 
627Seattle Zen
� � � ID: 1410391215
� � � Wed, Apr 28, 2010, 13:57
Explaining things to weykool is a complete waste of time, so I will address this to other readers:

The cost per Medicare patient will decrease. The number of Medicare patients will increase. Overall Medicare costs will rise since there are more patients, but the cost per patient decrease makes the program more effective and improves its overall health.
 
628boikin
� � � ID: 532592112
� � � Wed, Apr 28, 2010, 14:34
The main argument was that thousands of people die a year from lack of health insurance, plus the economic drag on the country of having less healthy people working.

actually it is more cost effective to have people dieing off then been sustained by expensive health care. I am just saying.
 
629Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Wed, Apr 28, 2010, 14:40
I'm not sure there is any metric by which that would be true.
 
630boikin
� � � ID: 532592112
� � � Wed, Apr 28, 2010, 14:43
you mean besides total cost?
 
631Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Wed, Apr 28, 2010, 14:50
Cost is only part of the equation.

Those who are in insurance programs tend to be healthier overall for a large number of reasons, particularly because of preventative medicine and educational opportunities. They tend to go to the doctor long before a health problem becomes a crisis (meaning that the cost to treat the problem goes down).

Fewer emergency room visits for non-insurance patients (which, typically, turns into charity cases paid for by everyone else) also saves money.

So a large number of healthier people, all paying premiums for a longer period of time and getting treated for problems earlier translates into very significant savings over the long term.

Putting unhealthy people into a health insurance system is a shock for the short term--these people bring into the system all sorts of lingering problems. But long term savings, overall health level increases, and fewer deaths, translate into cost benefits overall.
 
632Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Wed, Apr 28, 2010, 15:11
Bill Frist: A surprising supporter of the health care bill.
 
633Boldwin
� � � ID: 183112613
� � � Wed, Apr 28, 2010, 16:01
In the short term we all knew (at least, those who read and understood the bill) that costs would increase. - PD

The most damning admission you've ever made on this board. No one parroted the absurd on it's face notion that the bill was going to save the county money more than you.
 
634Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Wed, Apr 28, 2010, 16:10
You would have had to have read more closely than you did that the savings are long-term for the project. But "admitting" something I've said all along is hardly a concession on my part.

And it doesn't actually change anything--long-term the savings are there.

Your point is like loudly complaining about the up-front cost of a CFL light bulb. Or home insulation.
 
635boikin
� � � ID: 532592112
� � � Wed, Apr 28, 2010, 16:11
re 631, no in absolute costs you add health expense and having people die off is cheaper then extended health care. I have read studies that show that reducing smoking actually costs more because people who smoke usually die off quickly and do not drain resources by living to 100.

 
636Boldwin
� � � ID: 183112613
� � � Wed, Apr 28, 2010, 17:39
The savings are long term? You mean when they get americans conditioned to accept euthanasia and rationing?
 
637Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Wed, Apr 28, 2010, 17:51
I dunno--which point is correct? Boikin's that early death means cost savings? Or yours?

#635: I'd really have to see what studies you are talking about. Health insurances works (largely) by having people pay premiums over decades before they start to see some returns on it as they get older. Putting more people into this same exact system doesn't appear, in my mind, to change the equation in any meaningful way.

Insurance companies are huge cash harvesting machines. I don't see that changing now that they will have more customers.
 
638Boldwin
� � � ID: 183112613
� � � Wed, Apr 28, 2010, 21:04
BTW Bill Frist has more in common with the interests of Bill Clinton' and Bush' financial backer Jackson Stephens than with republicans.
 
639Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Wed, Apr 28, 2010, 21:16
On health care issues he's had my attention for some time. He is hardly the kind of reactionary right winger that would command much of yours, I suspect.
 
640boikin
� � � ID: 532592112
� � � Thu, Apr 29, 2010, 11:18
RE: 637 it has nothing to do with insurance I am just saying add up the costs of treatment. Or just think of a single payer world and how much it would cost a tax payer.
 
641Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Thu, Apr 29, 2010, 11:25
I'm afraid I'm not at all sure where you are coming from.

If you are saying that health care is expensive I'll certainly grant you that. Or that it is more expensive the older a person gets.

But I don't think you can put aside the years premiums paid (or, in a single payer side, the years of taxes) and somehow call and early death welcome from a fiscal point of view.
 
642boikin
� � � ID: 532592112
� � � Thu, Apr 29, 2010, 11:30
I am not saying an early death is welcome, the point is that it is a myth that having a healthier population actually saves on health care expenses.
 
643Boldwin
� � � ID: 183112613
� � � Thu, Apr 29, 2010, 11:40
I'm not saying this is a real useful approach but I know Boikin is right on this. Smokers actually save the sefety net money by dying off early without costing much in SS etc.
 
644Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Thu, Apr 29, 2010, 11:43
#642: I'd like to see the study, if you have a link handy.

 
645Boldwin
� � � ID: 183112613
� � � Thu, Apr 29, 2010, 11:56
Here you go.
"This doesn't make sense," you say, "Smokers are less healthy than nonsmokers." That may be true, and smokers do use up to 40 percent more medical care while they are alive. A recent study from Holland showed that, on average, smokers die at age 77 and save $100,000 in lifetime medical care costs compared with non-smokers who die at 83.

The same is true for people who are obese...In the Dutch study, obese people die at 80 and save $50,000 compared with non-obese people who die at 83.
 
646Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Thu, Apr 29, 2010, 12:24
Interesting. I'll have to drill down into this a bit more. It does seem a little more restrictive that boikin's point, however. I'm certain that there are some groups for which it is very expensive to have a long life. I'm less certain this is true across all lives. Or the aggregate of all lives.
 
647Boldwin
� � � ID: 183112613
� � � Thu, Apr 29, 2010, 12:53
Not useful in the sense that saving money that way isn't desirable, but useful in the sense that you would think there would be less urgency to use draconian measures to withhold from people their chosen health vice. When considering whether 'vice penalties' are justifiable you cannot use the argument that you really hate to do it, but you must force them to obey your health rules so that you can save 'the people' money.

[as if liberals really hated to push people around]
 
648biliruben
� � � ID: 113582522
� � � Fri, Apr 30, 2010, 02:30
Well, killing toddlers would save a boatload of money too, but you are only ignoring all the money those toddlers (or smokers) would have contributed to the economy. If you are going to look at things in a sterile pure-monetary way, you gotta at least do it honestly by looking at both sides of the ledger.

Maybe smokers are hyper-productive?

In any case, lets just do our best to provide as much health care as we can to those who need it in as fair and equitable way as we can manage.
 
649Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Sat, May 01, 2010, 20:46
Now it comes: John Boehner: Popular parts of HCR were our ideas.
 
650Mith
� � � ID: 482583111
� � � Sat, May 01, 2010, 20:47
Did he remember to include the death panels?
 
651Nuclear Gophers
� � � ID: 7115138
� � � Sat, May 08, 2010, 11:54
From todays USA Today:
Obama says health care law already helps millions





President Obama defended the new health care law in his Saturday radio-Internet address.



WASHINGTON (AP) � President Obama said Saturday that millions of Americans already are reaping benefits from the new national health care law, including tax breaks for some small businesses and help for families with young adults.
In his weekly radio-Internet address, Obama vigorously defended the new law, which passed Congress with no Republican votes and continues to stir strong emotions nationwide. He acknowledged that many provisions will not take effect for years. But he said others are helping some families now.

Four million small business owners and organizations have been told of a possible health care tax cut this year, Obama said. On June 15, some elderly people with high prescription drug costs will receive $250 to help fill in gaps in government-funded pharmaceutical benefits.

"Already we are seeing a health care system that holds insurance companies more accountable and gives consumers more control," the president said.

Obama said Anthem Blue Cross dropped a proposed 39% premium increase on Californians after his administration demanded an explanation. He said Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius wrote to all states "urging them to investigate other rate hikes and stop insurance companies from gaming the system."

A new federal agency will provide grants to states with the best oversight programs, Obama said.

His administration also is drafting a "patients' bill of rights" to give consumers information about their health care choices and rights, he said.

As of September, Obama said, "the new health care law prohibits insurance companies from dropping people's coverage when they get sick and need it most."

Unlike other industrialized democracies, the United States does not have a comprehensive national health care system. Rather than push for a U.S-funded "single payer" system, Obama's reforms focused on eliminating inequities in coverage by existing private insurers.

He said his administration will urge large employers to follow several insurance companies' example of allowing people under 26 to stay on their parents' employer-provided health insurance plans starting this summer, rather than having to wait until September or later.

"Ultimately, we'll have a system that provides more control for consumers, more accountability for insurance companies and more affordable choices for uninsured Americans," Obama said.

Republicans continue to attack the new law as too costly and ineffective. They vow to make it a major issue in the November congressional elections.

A new Gallup poll found that the law's enactment has not lessened Americans' concerns about health care costs. The poll found that 61% worry about the costs of a serious illness or accident and 48% worry about normal health care costs.

My health insurance just went up 40 dollars a month this month. Thanks for the help.
 
652Mattinglyinthehall
� � � ID: 37838313
� � � Sat, May 08, 2010, 11:58
You're so sure your health insurance wouldn't have gone up that much or more anyway?
 
653Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Sat, May 08, 2010, 16:14
Everyone's health insurance is expected to go up. The new laws require insurance companies to provide more benefits (portability, no pre-existing condition rejections, etc).

I'm not sure why anyone would feel that those people getting more benefits from their insurance company would have their costs go down.
 
654Boldwin
� � � ID: 183112613
� � � Sat, May 08, 2010, 16:25
I expect the PD's of the world to excuse insurance companies as they are forced to raise prices [as he is doing to provide cover for the HCR bill], until it's time to demonize them again for the last round of 'reform' when they go for single-payer, total government control. Then it will either be fascist healthcare where the government controls private insurance 100% or socialist healthcare where the government takes over completely and the private insurers just pull out.
 
655Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Sat, May 08, 2010, 16:30
You expect a lot if ficticious things to pass these days, it seems.

I'm excusing nothing--merely pointing out that providing more services means costs are passed to the consumer.

Is this news to you?

I'm not sure who "they" are in your mini-rant, but you really seem to hate "they."
 
656Boldwin
� � � ID: 183112613
� � � Sat, May 08, 2010, 18:19
This is the equivalent in the medical issue, of the way Obama treats Goldman Sachs. He will just whipsaw back and forth on them however it suits his purposes while taking their million dollar contributions and appointing the same insiders from the same circles who created the meltdown to advise him.

Today you understand you've driven up insurance prices and that is only just begun to be factored into the prices.

Tomorrow you will be demonizing greedy insurance companies in order to get single-payer total government control. And I'll be the only person to point out the two faces you are talking out of.
 
657Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Sat, May 08, 2010, 18:31
Actually, a long time ago I understood rates would go up. Why? Because insurance companies are offering more services.

"Wait and you'll see" really isn't an altogether useful political phrase. Particularly when it seems to be the only thing you are saying now. Oh, I guess the full phrase is: "Obama is very very bad. Wait and you'll see."
 
658Boldwin
� � � ID: 183112613
� � � Sat, May 08, 2010, 19:13
Just to correct a point, they aren't offering the people who are being asked to pony up the increases, more services. The people who are already covered are being asked, true to the HRC's socialist character, to pay for other people, and specifically the most expensive additions to the insurance pool.
 
659DWetzel
� � � ID: 33337117
� � � Sat, May 08, 2010, 22:44
Just to correct a major point (again)--those people are already being paid for by you, via the only practical avenue they currently have to seek medical care.

As long as you're paying anyway, you may as well take the cheaper alternative. Or you can ask them nicely to just die already, I suppose.
 
660Nuclear Gophers
� � � ID: 7115138
� � � Sun, May 09, 2010, 08:22
658-you beat me to it good post. Not only am I covering my family but now the lazy smucks in the usa waiting for the handouts.
 
661Nuclear Gophers
� � � ID: 7115138
� � � Sun, May 09, 2010, 08:26
Spreading the middle class wealth around, whats left of it. Health bill passed, my health bill goes up. Duhhhhhhhhhhh you do the math.
 
662Nuclear Gophers
� � � ID: 7115138
� � � Sun, May 09, 2010, 08:27
Things get a lot clearer when you use common sense.
 
663Mith
� � � ID: 482583111
� � � Sun, May 09, 2010, 08:43
Duhhhhhhhhhhh you do the math.

Health insurance has done nothing but go up for decades.

That pattern continues but this time it is solely because of something that happened just this year?

Come back when you actually do some math.
 
664Nuclear Gophers
� � � ID: 7115138
� � � Sun, May 09, 2010, 09:58
a trillion dollar bill and im still paying more for health insurance. Thats common sense math that we all learned in first grade.
 
665Tree
� � � ID: 248472317
� � � Sun, May 09, 2010, 10:08
a trillion dollar bill and im still paying more for health insurance.

the bill was designed to get more people insurance.

premiums have been rising for years.
 
666Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Sun, May 09, 2010, 10:20
Of course you are. That's called "capitalism." I haven't looked through this thread carefully, but I don't recall anyone from the Right asking that insurance companies subsidize the additional services you'll be obtaining from them.

 
667weykool
� � � Leader
� � � ID: 41750315
� � � Sun, May 09, 2010, 11:50
NG:
Debating healthcare is pointless.
The fact of the matter is nobody knows how much the cost of healthcare will rise with or without the bill.
Common sense and history tells us to the extent the government gets involved in anything the cost goes up and you get less.
When the cost of healthcare doubles the left will claim it would have tripled without the bill.
If the cost triples they will claim it would have quadrupled without it.
There can be no debate when one side has a built in excuse for no matter what happens.
 
668DWetzel
� � � ID: 33337117
� � � Sun, May 09, 2010, 11:56
Yeah, so stop using that stupid excuse and we can have a much better debate.
 
669Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Sun, May 09, 2010, 12:13
The fact of the matter is nobody knows how much the cost of healthcare will rise with or without the bill.

Actually, the CBO did extensive cost estimates on the many versions of the bills. In every one (to my knowledge) the understanding was that the short and medium term current health insurance premiums would rise higher with the bill's passage than without (for the reasons I've outlined already).

Really--this is a matter of public record. The refusal of some on the right to check the simple facts that are a matter of record (and instead, use them as a talking point against the "government") strikes me as evidence of what the Right has to offer as solutions to our country's problems in general.
 
670Seattle Zen
� � � Leader
� � � ID: 055343019
� � � Sun, May 09, 2010, 12:20
Nuclear Gophers - If I remember correctly, you recently started a job with a multi-national corporation and you receive healthcare as a benefit. When you say, "my health insurance went up", you are really commenting on your contribution to your healthcare coverage because you did not purchase the plan.

I don't think you can really draw any conclusions from the fact that your contribution to your coverage went up, for all you know, your employer's healthcare insurance costs went down, they just decided to stick you with a higher contribution.

weycool - The fact of the matter is nobody knows how much the cost of healthcare will rise with or without the bill.

Which "cost"? If you mean the total cost the entire country pays for healthcare, I agree. If you mean the amount the federal government will pay, I also agree in the aggregate, but on a per patient basis, costs will come down because Meidcare is going to pay less for many, many procedures and the medical industry is being told to adjust.

However, "common sense" tells us that you should have stopped there with your post.
 
671Nuclear Gophers
� � � ID: 7115138
� � � Sun, May 09, 2010, 14:41
SZ-No I pay for my insurance through the company. When I was self employed my health insurance was 290.00 per month. When I got my job with McDonalds we looked at their plan and we subscribed to it for 240.00 per month for basically the same plan. So as of next pay it will now cost me 280.00 per month. It gets taken out of my pay. Granted I am still 10.00 ahead of the game.
 
672weykool
� � � Leader
� � � ID: 41750315
� � � Sun, May 09, 2010, 16:14
The CBO...dont make me laugh.
Are you talking about the same CBO who couldnt make an accurate estimate as to when Social Security would be spending more than it would be taking in?
For every government program there is a CBO estimate on how much it will cost.
The track record of the CBO is still in tact as to being off on their estimates.
 
673Tree
� � � ID: 248472317
� � � Sun, May 09, 2010, 16:18
When I got my job with McDonalds we looked at their plan and we subscribed to it for 240.00 per month for basically the same plan. So as of next pay it will now cost me 280.00 per month.

10 bucks a weeks. i've had several years where my insurance increases were more than that.
 
674sarge33rd
� � � ID: 280311620
� � � Sun, May 09, 2010, 17:26
280/m??????? Sh*t I'd be ALL over that without complaint word one. Try 800+ every month like it is in my industry for the most part. Even at management levels, few kick in more than peanuts toward group health coverage.
 
675Nuclear Gophers
� � � ID: 7115138
� � � Mon, May 10, 2010, 18:24
Sarge sorry you pooped your pans. Another thing I found out was that if your child is 26 and under and does not go to school and or his work place issues health insurance then they are not covered.
 
676sarge33rd
� � � ID: 280311620
� � � Mon, May 10, 2010, 19:02
26 and under? Not correct. 12 yr olds are covered.
 
677Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Fri, May 14, 2010, 18:33
A nice benefit: Universal health care in Massachusetts helped lower abortion rates.
 
678Boldwin
� � � ID: 8423823
� � � Fri, May 14, 2010, 20:42
Policy Failure: Greece was told that if it wanted a bailout, it needed to consider privatizing its government health care system. So tell us again why the U.S. is following Europe's welfare state model.

The requirement, part of a deal arranged by the IMF, the European Union and the European Central bank, is a tacit admission that national health care programs are unsustainable. Along with transportation and energy, the bailout group, according to the New York Times, wants the Greek government to remove "the state from the marketplace in crucial sectors."
Meanwhle American liberals are still dreaming of 'putting it in the kitty'.
 
679Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Fri, May 14, 2010, 21:08
Your mixing up your talking points. The US is not following any European health care model. In fact, the IMF has asked Greece to move more toward the recently passed US system.

So do you agree with the IMF? And where in your analysis is the talk about the place of the ratings agencies (you know, those companies which got the housing crisis exactly right and did nothing to make it worse)? How about the fact that the US floats its currency while Greece doesn't?

Pretty much anyone who believes Obama is a "marxist" lacks the political science chops to comment on the situation in Greece, let alone become a "conservative link butler" to sites which attempt to make the situation in Greece about US domestic policy.
 
680Boldwin
� � � ID: 8423823
� � � Fri, May 14, 2010, 21:23
Do you believe Ann Dunham, Barack Obama Sr., Frank Marshall Davis, Bill Ayers and Saul Alinsky were marxists?
 
681Tosh
� � � Leader
� � � ID: 057721710
� � � Fri, May 14, 2010, 21:42
Ding Ding. Whoever had post 680 as the first mention of "Alinsky" wins the prize!
 
682Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Fri, May 14, 2010, 21:49
Heh.

Baldwin: I believe the point is whether Obama is a marxist. Everything else is just shoddy and lazy thinking.

 
683DWetzel
� � � ID: 33337117
� � � Fri, May 14, 2010, 22:23
681: Dammit, I bought the first 675 tickets before I ran out of money. Bad beat in my opinion.
 
684bibA
� � � ID: 114411511
� � � Sat, May 15, 2010, 12:41
Do you believe Ann Dunham, Barack Obama Sr., Frank Marshall Davis, Bill Ayers and Saul Alinsky were marxists?

Of course this argument is quite compelling, and definitely proves your point. However, weren't Karl Marx, Mao, Stalin, Engels, Pol Pot, Trotsky, and Castro - not to mention Jean-Paul Sartre, all marxists? What, you attempting to forgive Obama the sins of these dudes? Makes me wonder if maybe you're getting a bit soft!
 
685Boldwin
� � � ID: 8423823
� � � Sat, May 15, 2010, 14:44
He didn't actually suckle at the breast of those fellows. Figuratively of course, but not physically as in Ann Duham's case.
 
686Boldwin
� � � ID: 8423823
� � � Sat, May 15, 2010, 14:50
The US is not following any European health care model. In fact, the IMF has asked Greece to move more toward the recently passed US system. - PD

This is probably the most absurd contention anyone has ever made on the Poliboard. In what way is the IMF ordering Greece to privatize their socialized medicine somehow a vote of confidence in Obamacare which is only one step removed from full bloown socialized medicine? That step being the moving to single-payer government socialized medicine, something Obama and the Dems tried very hard to accomplish and fully intend to get with the next bite out of the apple.
 
687Razor
� � � ID: 222262113
� � � Sat, May 15, 2010, 14:59
Are you able to articulate how we are just one step away from having socialized health care? I am not smart enough to connect the dots between what was signed into law and single-payer health care.
 
688Boldwin
� � � ID: 8423823
� � � Sat, May 15, 2010, 15:06
Heritage Foundation study of what lessons America can draw from Europe's experience with healthcare.
 
689Boldwin
� � � ID: 8423823
� � � Sat, May 15, 2010, 15:11
Let's not pretend here, Razor. We both sure as the sun is coming up tomorrow morning, know that Obama and the progressive, dominant part of the Dem party was hellbent on a single-payer full-blown european style socialized healthcare system, and that they fully intend to get there. The fact that they settled for 3/4 of a loaf at this point does not accrue any credit to them for not quite being exactly the same as european socialism..
 
690Razor
� � � ID: 57854118
� � � Sat, May 15, 2010, 15:30
I don't think it's fair to speak on my behalf, especially when my last post was a clear admission that I am not capable of making the connecting A and B. I have asked you to do so, but you've just given more of your unsupported opinion. Don't confuse your opinion for fact.
 
691Boldwin
� � � ID: 8423823
� � � Sat, May 15, 2010, 15:38
I've posted Obama's own words on you-tube repeatedly assuring his liberal fans that he was doing everything in his power to move us toward single-payer government healthcare. Don't ask me to google it over and over. Watch it the first time.
 
692Mattinglyinthehall
� � � ID: 37838313
� � � Sat, May 15, 2010, 15:40
Out-of-context distortions don't count.
 
693Tree
� � � ID: 248472317
� � � Sat, May 15, 2010, 16:26
Let's not pretend here, Razor.

nearly *EVERYTHING* you say is pretend, here.
 
694Boldwin
� � � ID: 8423823
� � � Sat, May 15, 2010, 17:55
How on earth is showing a video of Obama clearly affirming his earnest desire to bring about single-payer, out of context distortion?
 
695Mith
� � � ID: 482583111
� � � Sun, May 16, 2010, 08:50
The real question is why anyone should bother responding to that disingenuous question for the hundredth or so time.
 
696chode
� � � ID: 23412621
� � � Sun, May 16, 2010, 16:56
And yet *none* of you can help yourselves. Whether it's that question or any other.

 
697Boldwin
� � � ID: 24528715
� � � Tue, Jun 08, 2010, 10:02
Obama's choice to run healthcare or at least Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), Donald Berwick is best known for his longstanding love affair with the British healthcare system. To be fair he covers himself with the figleaf that 'even their system has warts' but he loves it just the same. Also to be fair, globalist George Bush didn't mind him either.

Well those warts are pretty extreme.

Now comes the Investor's Business Daily with the latest news from Britain.

The Doctor Will See You Later

According to the Daily Mail, Britain's National Health Service is "preparing to cut millions of operations" so that it can save $29 billion by 2014. Procedures that will be "decommissioned," if we may borrow a particularly descriptive term used by one doctor, include hip replacements for obese patients, some operations for hernias and gallstones, and treatments for varicose veins, ear and nose problems, and cataract surgery.
To paraphrase Obama, "Why don't you just go take a pain pill and go blind."

 
698Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Tue, Jun 08, 2010, 10:11
I guess we're just lucky we're not going to a British style system, then.
 
699Boldwin
� � � ID: 24528715
� � � Tue, Jun 08, 2010, 10:18
Tell it to Donald Berwick.
 
700Tree
� � � ID: 248472317
� � � Mon, Jun 14, 2010, 14:32
damned those Bush women...

"Why do, basically, people with money have good health care and why do people who live on lower salaries not have good health care?" said Barbara Bush, the 28-year-old daughter of former President George W. Bush. "Health should be a right for everyone." She is president of the Global Health Corps, an organization that champions global health equity.

---

Barbara Bush's comments come just weeks after her mother, former First Lady Laura Bush, professed views that departed sharply from the Republican majority opinion. During a Fox News interview, Laura Bush was asked to comment on Elena Kagan's nomination to the Supreme Court.

"I think it's great," she responded. "I'm really glad that there will be three [women] if she's confirmed. I like to have women on the Supreme Court."

And in an interview with CNN's Larry King last month, she came out in favor of abortion rights and gay marriage.
 
701Seattle Zen
� � � Leader
� � � ID: 055343019
� � � Mon, Jun 14, 2010, 23:57
Not only is Barbara the hottest Bush, she's the smartest.
 
702Seattle Zen
� � � Leader
� � � ID: 055343019
� � � Mon, Jun 14, 2010, 23:58
Sort of a "tallest midget" crown, however...
 
703Building 7
� � � Leader
� � � ID: 171572711
� � � Mon, Aug 02, 2010, 13:47


Congressman: The Federal Government can do most anything in this country. The lady is asking some reasonable questions. It may be time for me to attend one of these meetings.
 
704Boldwin
� � � ID: 42739217
� � � Mon, Aug 02, 2010, 19:28
This is why they just can't work up any antipathy towards totalitarians.

They are.
 
705Boldwin
� � � ID: 33715234
� � � Mon, Aug 23, 2010, 05:21
I didnt do it. No one saw me do it. No one can prove anything.
"I know this is a tough vote," President Obama told House Democrats at a March pep rally merely hours before they passed national health care. But he added that he was "actually confident" that "it will end up being the smart thing to do politically because I believe that good policy is good politics." Apparently not, as even some liberal lobbies are now being forced to concede.

On Thursday, Families USA hosted a "messaging" conference call with Democrats and Democratic allies, admitting that ObamaCare has not in fact become more popular since it passed. Families USA called for a wholesale shift in how Democrats now attempt to sell its handiwork to the public, the central theme being that "The law is not perfect, but it does good things and helps many people. Now we'll work to improve it."

That's according to the power point presentation that accompanied the briefing, as first reported by Ben Smith of Politico.com. "Don't make grand claims about the law," another slide added. "Use 'improve it' language." But wait: Wasn't improvement supposed to be the point of ObamaCare?

The presentation was based on internal polling done by the Herndon Alliance, which was formed in 2005 to lobby for national health care and whose daisy chain of "partners" includes the Center for American Progress, AARP and the unions AFL-CIO, SEIU and AFSCME. That Families USA would endorse this strategic switcheroo is especially notable�make that astonishing�given that a plan like ObamaCare has been the group's existential goal for two decades. This is like Moses saying that, on second thought and after consulting with his pollster, maybe the land of milk and honey is overrated.

So much, too, for the liberal claim�or delusion�at the time of the ObamaCare votes that failing to pass it would be worse politically. "I think Democrats fully understand they have to pass this legislation," Families USA president Ron Pollack said in January. "The alternative is an absolute disaster."

Bill Clinton also importuned reluctant Democrats with the revisionist history that Republicans took the House in 1994 not because of HillaryCare but to punish his party for failing to pass it. In one bit of widely reported advice, Mr. Clinton conceded that ObamaCare was unpopular but told Members to "put the corn where the hogs can get to it." To translate from the Bubba idiom, he meant that if they explained it simply and clearly, voters would come around.

Not according to the Families USA Herndon presentation. "Keep claims small and credible; don't overpromise or 'spin' what the law delivers," it advised. Its "to don't" items include offering "a long list of benefits" or claims that "the law will reduce costs and the deficit," even as "Voters are concerned about rising health care costs and believe that costs will continue to rise."

Looping back to Mr. Obama's political advice, his government takeover of health care is unpopular because it is arguably the worst legislation since the Smoot-Hawley Tariff, and the voters know it. Still, it's amazing to see Democrats now pretend for election purposes that the bill they said would be an achievement for the liberal ages is something other than what they passed. Voters should demand DNA samples, aka, Democratic voting records.

- WSJ
 
706The Left Behind
� � � ID: 66232012
� � � Mon, Aug 23, 2010, 13:13
The title of this thread is very appropriate. "The Dems Strikes Back" just like The Empire in Star Wars. The evil equivalency is there too because The Empire was an organization that wants to control everything like the Democrats we have in power today.
 
707biliruben
� � � ID: 34435239
� � � Mon, Aug 23, 2010, 13:13
I was starting to feel nervous for the dems, but now that the consistently wrong WSJ editorial page has weighed in, I am feeling much more confident.

You know that almost nothing has been implemented yet, don't you?
 
708The Left Behind
� � � ID: 66232012
� � � Mon, Aug 23, 2010, 13:15
You know that almost nothing has been implemented yet, don't you?

Just like the stimulus package. At least this administration is consistent.
 
710Boldwin
� � � ID: 17222319
� � � Mon, Aug 23, 2010, 21:36
I wonder just how much they are learning from and copying the Clinton years. Concede the congress to the republicans in the midterms and then claim their successes.

 
711Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Thu, Sep 02, 2010, 14:21
The string of GOP hypocrisy continues, as 7 states both sue the federal goverment over the health care bill and apply for benefits under it.

"This is unconstitutional!!! Now how do I get some?"
 
712Frick
� � � ID: 97321912
� � � Thu, Sep 02, 2010, 15:49
I live in one of the 7 states. I would extremely upset if my government didn't apply. If the lawsuits lose (likely) residents of my state would not be eligible for the program, yet residents would still be forced to pay for it.

Just because you don't agree with something doesn't mean you don't act on it.
 
713Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Thu, Sep 02, 2010, 16:11
Every one of those states are suing the government on unquestioned, unchanging, solid constitutional grounds.

They lack the balls, however, to actually act on their convictions by refusing money collected and sent to them unconstitutionally.
 
714boikin
� � � ID: 532592112
� � � Thu, Sep 02, 2010, 16:26
maybe they should refuse to allow the government to collect the money.
 
715Boldwin
� � � ID: 1183027
� � � Thu, Sep 02, 2010, 18:01
When someone picks your pocket and then offers your lighter than usual wallet back, first you take your wallet back and then you consider what other steps to take.
 
716Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Thu, Sep 02, 2010, 18:08
Nobody is picking any pockets. The problem here is that those states continue to think that what is going on is illegal (it isn't). And if it is wrong, then enabling the program by filling out applications for it probably isn't going to help your credibility, particularly when you are taking money while complaining that the government is going into debt to pay it to you.

Want to stop the government from taking on more debt? Stop telling it to send you borrowed money.

"Oh no--stop me from making the government borrow more money from my children to pay for a program I want to stop but applied for anyway because I want the money!"
 
717Boldwin
� � � ID: 1183027
� � � Thu, Sep 02, 2010, 18:23
Nobody is picking any pockets.

The federal government is picking every pocket in the state to provide that 'benefit' so stop asking the state not to take whatever they can recover from the crime.
 
718Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Thu, Sep 02, 2010, 18:27
Whoosh! Missed the point, didja?

So you are OK with the government borrowing money to pay the states benefits they don't want in the first place? In fact, you encourage them to "get theirs" as it were? Even though you are of the belief that the government will have to subsidize the program (and, because we're running a deficit, that means more borrowing at interest this money)?

I'd just like to be able pin down exactly which hypocrisy you are advocating, because there are quite a few here to choose from.
 
719Boldwin
� � � ID: 1183027
� � � Thu, Sep 02, 2010, 23:00
I know you and Rachel Maddow are in love with that sophistry.

It does not change the fact that a person may stand in line and try and get his valuables back from Robbinhood without in any way approving and appreciating highway robbery.

That Robbinhood is writing rubber checks to China and signing our names to them instead of robbing us directly [as he's already robbed us blind, he's now moving to the silk road to practice his craft] does not take away from the argument I am making.
 
720Boldwin
� � � ID: 1183027
� � � Thu, Sep 02, 2010, 23:04
And the answer is to repeal the entire HCR, not to ask responsible states to suffer both the loss of free market medicine as well as to forego the lousy substitute the socialists are offering.
 
721DWetzel
� � � ID: 33337117
� � � Thu, Sep 02, 2010, 23:04
Taking away from the argument you are making would be impossible. Arguments can't go into negative numbers.
 
722Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Fri, Sep 03, 2010, 08:13
I guess the assumption that someone is making arguments based upon sincerely-held political philosophy is making an ass out of me here. Your arguments these days, Baldwin, seem to consist of little more than a series of Tea Party-style buzz words--a lot of light and light but no real warmth.

Saying things loudly and (at times) rudely doesn't actually make an argument passionate. It is just going the motions of a passionate debate, which comes from deeply-held core beliefs. Perhaps many on the Right are hoping for cognitive dissonance to step in--they'll continue to argue loudly and they hope a cogent and cohesive political philosophy will solidify around it. I dunno. Anyway, I'm going to cease directly responding to you, at least for awhile, Baldwin. Good luck with the staying-a-believer-while-continuing-to-bear-false-witness thing. You'll need it--you are serving two masters now.
 
723Frick
� � � ID: 97321912
� � � Fri, Sep 03, 2010, 10:24
I'm not sure I understand your hostility towards the states that are challenging the law while at the same time applying for the program. If they lose their case, the residents of their states will be harmed. So they should put aside the well being of the residents of their states so they can appear more virtuous? Sounds great in theory, but reality has a way of biting you in the ass.

As I said before, I would be more upset if the states didn't apply and allowed their citizens to be harmed because of their inaction.
 
724The Left Behind
� � � ID: 66232012
� � � Fri, Sep 10, 2010, 13:10
I am having difficulty locating information on Obama's law. Is there something along the lines of a typical family pays x per month now under the traditional employer-employee model and now they will pay y per month under Obamacare?
 
726Boldwin
� � � ID: 48311016
� � � Fri, Sep 10, 2010, 19:09
We are in the pre-implimentation phase where the rules and costs are not finalized by the myriad of bodies created to administer this thing. We are supposed to be lulled during this period. Granny hasn't been euthanized yet, we haven't been bullied yet, free medicine hasn't been destroyed yet.
 
727Boldwin
� � � ID: 48311016
� � � Fri, Sep 10, 2010, 20:25
You are not allowed to tell the truth that you are passing along the increased costs of Obamacare's new requirements:
President Barack Obama�s top health official on Thursday warned the insurance industry that the administration won�t tolerate blaming premium hikes on the new health overhaul law.

�There will be zero tolerance for this type of misinformation and unjustified rate increases,� Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said in a letter to the insurance lobby.

�Simply stated, we will not stand idly by as insurers blame their premium hikes and increased profits on the requirement that they provide consumers with basic protections,� [now redefined to include abortion and encouraged suicide counselling, etc - B] Sebelius said. She warned that bad actors may be excluded from new health insurance markets that will open in 2014 under the law. They�d lose out on a big pool of customers, as many as 30 million people nationwide. - Hot Air [definitely not part of Stephens Media]
 
728 Building 7
� � � Leader
� � � ID: 171572711
� � � Fri, Sep 10, 2010, 21:34
My health insurance went up 50% on 9/1.
I don't know if it's because of Obamacare.
I do know this:
My health insurance was X.
Obamacare passed.
My health insurance is now X * 1.5.
 
729Pancho Villa
� � � ID: 597172916
� � � Fri, Sep 10, 2010, 21:38
B7,
Are you telling us your health insurance premiums didn't rise during a period of, say, the past 10 years?

Over the past 10 years, premiums have risen 131 percent while wages have increased just 38 percent. In that time, inflation has gone up 28 percent.

link
 
730bibA
� � � ID: 48627713
� � � Fri, Sep 10, 2010, 22:01
My health insurance premiums haven't gone up one red cent all year.
 
731Building 7
� � � Leader
� � � ID: 171572711
� � � Fri, Sep 10, 2010, 23:55
Are you telling us your health insurance premiums didn't rise during a period of, say, the past 10 years?

They go up pretty much every year. More than inflation. This is due to heavy involvement in the health care industry from the governmant IMO. I actually switched to another deductible. That one only went up 15 or 20%.

I also loaded up on the health care casino legislation, also known as the taxsaver spending plan. This is probably the last year I'll get to use it. Any kind of optional surgery, dental work, medical supplies, will be done this year at 36% off my taxes.

 
732Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Sat, Sep 11, 2010, 00:10
B7: Maybe your health insurance is going up because it doesn't differentiate between an employee with one child or ten.
 
733Boldwin
� � � ID: 4289140
� � � Tue, Sep 14, 2010, 21:19
So Orwellian I struggled whether to put it in the 'Big Brother's Toolbox' thread.

Sebelius' multi-pronged re-education plans to erase the ugly truth...
Key White House allies are dramatically shifting their attempts to defend health care legislation, abandoning claims that it will reduce costs and deficit and instead stressing a promise to �improve it.�

In other words, they�re hoping that the voters will be too stupid to notice this abrupt about-face.

The second target for �re-education� is doctors and patients.

Liberal media outlets like National Public Radio are now trumpeting the supposed virtues of the �medical home,� where primary care doctors and specialists theoretically coordinate their expertise to provide comprehensive, integrated care for patients. Even the phrase �medical home� has a warm-and-fuzzy feel. But under ObamaCare, �medical homes� will instead likely be used to control costs by using primary care doctors as gatekeepers to restrict access to expensive tests such as MRI scans, or to specialists such as cardiologists and orthopedic surgeons.

Patients will be herded into these new �medical home� plans under ObamaCare laws, which will start limiting employers� ability to continue offering their current health plans.

Similarly, the government will nudge doctors into working for �medical homes� via a combination of financial rewards and penalties. Once there, the government will specify how doctors must practice and what �quality� measures they must meet in order to get paid.

Hence, under ObamaCare �medical homes� will be more like �medical government housing projects.�

In effect, the government is saying: �Let�s pretend we never said ObamaCare would lower costs � even though that�s how we sold it to the public.� �Let�s push patients into restrictive health plans � and call it a �medical home.�� �Let�s label it �misinformation� when insurers tell the truth about how our laws raise their costs � and then punish them if they complain about it.� And as the problems of ObamaCare deepen, we can expect such �re-education� efforts to intensify.

Fortunately, we can stop this. Last spring, when Obama demanded that Congress pass his health care bill he said that if Americans didn�t like it, �then that�s what elections are for.�

Well, the 2010 election is nearly here. Soon, it will be our turn to have our say. And unless we want to be on the receiving end of perpetual �re-education� from our politicians, we must re-educate them about our commitment to basic American freedoms. - Pajamas Media [surely not part of Obama's Net Trap]
 
734Mattinglyinthehall
� � � ID: 37838313
� � � Tue, Sep 14, 2010, 22:08
I think we're better off adhering to the new C&P policy, even from rightist sites.

Copyright precedent isn't impacted by the political persuasion of the writer.
 
735Boldwin
� � � ID: 4289140
� � � Tue, Sep 14, 2010, 22:19
So what exactly can we c-n-p? Nothing? Has Obama really beaten blogging free speech that easily?
 
736Boldwin
� � � ID: 4289140
� � � Tue, Sep 14, 2010, 22:21
�According to Politico, not a single Democratic candidate for Congress has run an ad since last April that makes any positive reference to Obamacare.� - Glenn Reynolds, the guy from whom I first heard of this new attack on free speech, the internet and blogging.
 
737Mattinglyinthehall
� � � ID: 37838313
� � � Tue, Sep 14, 2010, 22:21
Guru was not unclear.
 
738Tree
� � � ID: 248472317
� � � Tue, Sep 14, 2010, 23:19
in his fervor, i'm sure Baldwin missed the actual stuff that matters.

for his - and anyone else's - benefit:

I think it should be fine to cite small sections of other works, when used to make a point - especially if properly attributed, and with a link, if possible.

I'm more concerned about the occasional posts that copy and paste large sections of - and sometimes the entire - document.


and

The policy of this forum is that copyrighted materials should not be republished without permission...

...If you wish to cite an article or publication, you may provide a link.
 
739Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Wed, Oct 06, 2010, 22:46
Orin Kerr of The Volokh Conspiracy believes the health care law's individual mandate will pass constitutional muster

Can't say I disagree with the analysis. Like it or not, SCOTUS has consistently given Congress a lot of latitude when it comes to the Commerce Clause. Tough to see them overturning precedent to knock this one down, should it ever come to it.
 
740Frick
� � � ID: 42825248
� � � Thu, Oct 07, 2010, 08:48
Nice find PD.

The author gives his analysis without bias. It appears that not much is going to stop the bill. I'm willing to see how it works, as the long-term consequences of this bill are tough to determine. Action needed to be taken, I might not agree with all of it, but hopefully it will lead towards improvements.
 
741Boldwin
� � � ID: 571051214
� � � Sat, Nov 13, 2010, 02:26
Well it was all worth it setting up that bureaucracy and the 200 new taxes.

ObamaCare saves one person from the horrors of the pre-existing medical system in North Dakota.

Wow, I just can't figure out why they were so insistent on making participation mandatory.

Yeah, I know, it's early and the paradise sure to follow.
 
742Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Sat, Nov 13, 2010, 12:51
Many insurance companies are claiming they don't have to work the non-preexisting conditions into their policies until 2014. I don't know if they are right or not, but it doesn't surprise me that companies are putting off applying the benefit as long as possible, and the market reflects that stalling.
 
743Tree
� � � ID: 1410371019
� � � Sat, Nov 13, 2010, 16:15
i was turned down for health insurance this summer for a pre-existing condition, and a relatively minor one at that.

it was pretty shocking to me that kidney stones made me unable to get insurance. i can only imagine what it's like for someone with diabetes or who beat cancer.
 
744Boldwin
� � � ID: 251051417
� � � Mon, Nov 15, 2010, 04:12
If you can't repeal it without 60 senators, how about giving everyone a waiver?

Obama off to a flying start with this new 'repeal by waiver' strategy. Strange but true.
 
745Boldwin
� � � ID: 1711161315
� � � Mon, Dec 13, 2010, 16:16
Obamacare loses one of those 'They can't make me buy it' suits.

Thank you Virginia.
 
746walk
� � � ID: 348442710
� � � Mon, Dec 13, 2010, 16:50
Long way to go on this...several justices have ruled the law is constitutionally valid, so it's going to potentially take years to hash out. What is troubling is that in almost every case, the decisions, and the suits themselves, have been partisan. Dem AGs not filing suits, Repbu AGs filing suits. Dem nominated judges ruling it's okay; Repub nominated judge saying it's not. Back to Bush-V-Gore.
 
747Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Mon, Dec 13, 2010, 17:14
Haven't read too much of this, though what I've read so far makes me think:

1. This is an automatic appeal to SCOTUS, I believe.

2. The federal judge seems to be weighing the federal law against the state (Virginia) law as much as the analysis of the historic use of the Commerce Clause. I want to read it all again, but I think he misses the point that the federal law trumps state law on the point of the mandate. I've said before that this all hinges on the Commerce Clause, and at first read I wish he'd have made more on the CC point.
 
748Building 7
� � � Leader
� � � ID: 171572711
� � � Mon, Dec 13, 2010, 17:26
If they can make you buy insurance, there is nothing they cannot make you do. Thus, ends the era of limited federal government.

The 10th amendment trumps the vague commerce clause. Virginia had a law that their citizens do not have to buy insurance. This law was in place before Obamacare.
 
749biliruben
� � � ID: 358252515
� � � Mon, Dec 13, 2010, 18:50
You know, I kinda agree.

I don't like the convoluted way we are simply doing the morally correct thing: providing access to healthcare for all citizens, without risking bankrupting them.

Just make health insurers illegal, and problem solved.
 
750Boldwin
� � � ID: 4411511320
� � � Mon, Dec 13, 2010, 22:11
without risking bankrupting them.

You think there's no risk of ginormous government entitlement programs bankrupting us? If only it were true. Closer to the truth, they guarantee it.
 
751biliruben
� � � ID: 358252515
� � � Tue, Dec 14, 2010, 13:52
Given there are already a ton of them, they've been around for generations and our country hasn't yet been bankrupted, it's hard for to share conviction based on zero evidence or experience.
 
752Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Tue, Dec 14, 2010, 16:33
The 10th amendment trumps the vague commerce clause

Both are in the Constitution. Neither one "trumps" the other.
 
753Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Wed, Dec 15, 2010, 00:43
Owen Kerr points out a flaw in the argument made by Judge Hudson.

Having read more on this thing, the real problem with Judge Hudson's ruling (aside from trying to explain away, by "logic," the Necessary and Proper Clause), is that he never addresses the real problem with the mandate: Is the individual mandate a reasonable method by Congress to institute the health care law they passed? Judge Hudson skips over this question, which is the question conservatives want answered in the negative.

This decision, on the whole, is a bad one for both conservatives and the rest of us. Conservatives were denied a chance to have a ruling in their favor on the issue they brought up (meaning that the appellate court & SCOTUS are less likely to even discuss the point, since it was dismissed by Hudson).

Hudson's ruling is the judicial equivalent of a judge saying "No, Congress is not permitted to follow through on the Louisiana Purchase, because it isn't specifically permitted in the Constitution."
 
754Boldwin
� � � ID: 531133150
� � � Wed, Dec 15, 2010, 01:33
bili

What a sense deja vu you've given me. I can barely distinguish between you and Barney Frank snarling at regulators warning him Fannie and Freddie were about to crash the economy.
 
755biliruben
� � � ID: 34820210
� � � Wed, Dec 15, 2010, 07:37
By any reasonable view of the data, it was private, poorly regulated financial industry, not F%F, that crashed the economy.

I could have sworn I won that argument about a dozen times now. Do you only re-read your own posts over and over?
 
756Khahan
� � � ID: 373143013
� � � Wed, Dec 15, 2010, 13:52
PD, can you expand on this one for me: Is the individual mandate a reasonable method by Congress to institute the health care law they passed?

What I get from that is you feel that Congress can pass a law then reach beyond their authority to enforce it.

Does it really matter if its reasonable? If they don't have the authority to force us to purchase something, then they simply don't have the authority. Or am I misreading what you are getting at here?

Claiming, "We need to do what we're not allowed to accomplish this goal," isn't good.
 
757Boldwin
� � � ID: 4011341512
� � � Wed, Dec 15, 2010, 13:53
I could have sworn I won that argument about a dozen times now. bili

You are the expert who tried to tell me Fannie Mae originated mortgages and I've been schooling you ever since.

It all hinged on those security packages full of junk mortgages that FM/FM put together, that Sachs and Lehman Brothers sold, that derivatives from people like AIG insured, that financial institutions bought up as their Tier One securities. Once it was clear what an empty assurance of stability those were everyone was a suspect house of cards and credit froze.

Talk Glass-Steagall and 'greedy bankers'...
The repeal of the Glass�Steagall Act of 1933 effectively removed the separation that previously existed between Wall Street investment banks and depository banks and has been blamed by some for exacerbating the damage caused by the collapse of the subprime mortgage market that led to the Financial crisis of 2007�2010.[4] The potential to make enormous profits trading mortgage-backed securities with artificially high ratings[5] encouraged banks to take on otherwise intolerable risk in the form of bad loans.
...derivatives and their lack of clearinghouses and regulation yes...but there too the damage was related to those sub-prime FM/FM products.
In 1971 Richard Nixon appointed tax lawyer William Casey as chair to the SEC and the result was an end to the prohibition of a market in options and futures derivatives. In the 1980s Fisher Black and Merton, two professors of economics, developed formulas to streamline this process in the modern context and a number of firms like J.P. Morgan invented financial devices in the 1990s to sell debt associated with securitized mortgages based on their ideas.

These began the current explosion in liquidity.
The devices were called derivatives and we know them from a number of letters, like LCDS (Loan credit default swaps), CDS of CDOs (credit default swaps of collateralized debt obligations), CFDs (contracts of difference) and basically they are means of placing bets on movements in the markets. The way was open to the floodgates of speculation.
It all hinged on FM/FM, the warnings were loud and clear.



And the reason the warnings weren't acted upon?

In the words of long time Fannie Mae 'cover man', Barney Frank, central figure in the financial services committee...
�These two entities � Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac � are not facing any kind of financial crisis,� Frank said to the Times. �The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.�
Or in the spirit of bili#751 they've been around for generations and our country hasn't yet been bankrupted

Famous last words.
 
758Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Wed, Dec 15, 2010, 14:38
#756: SCOTUS has traditionally given Congress wide latitude (some would say too wide) when it comes to the Commerce Clause, because of the Proper and Necessary Clause:

The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

In other words, if Congress is passing a law regarding interstate commerce, it has the power (within a certain wide latitude) to make other laws to bring it about.

So the question for the healthcare law is whether Congress overstepped its Constitutional authority in passing a health care law with an individual mandate attached to it. Congress is fully within its bounds to pass laws regarding the health care industry, insurance, and so on, but is the law's stated aims obtainable through the individual mandate only?

That is the question that those against the health care law wanted answered, in the negative. It is the financial lynchpin upon which the whole law rests--without it the numbers don't work. And the judge failed to address the question entirely.

SCOTUS limits the Proper and Necessary Clause very, very rarely, mostly because the language is so sweeping. IMO, it is the primary reason why the health care law will be found to be constitutional. But (again, IMO) SCOTUS won't even look at this question because it wasn't the basis of the judge's decision. The only (slim) way that law would be overturned is if SCOTUS overturned it on Necessary and Proper clause reasons.
 
759Khahan
� � � ID: 373143013
� � � Wed, Dec 15, 2010, 15:05
So the question for the healthcare law is whether Congress overstepped its Constitutional authority in passing a health care law with an individual mandate attached to it.

I'm just surprised this is even in question. To me it seems so blatantly obvious that they overstepped their authority.
 
760Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Wed, Dec 15, 2010, 15:18
The list of crazy stuff Congress has passed because of the Necessary and Proper clause is a long one.

The clause is extremely vague, as you can see, so it gives them extremely wide latitude. It might be that they are unnecessarily reaching with the mandate, but I don't think it is a Constitutional overreach.
 
761Boldwin
� � � ID: 4011341512
� � � Wed, Dec 15, 2010, 17:33
If congress were mandating that every household must buy a military assault rifle...as they actually do in Switzerland...would the Tea Party congress have that authority? And let's hear how you would react.
 
762Boldwin
� � � ID: 4011341512
� � � Wed, Dec 15, 2010, 17:39
And do you really feel the Commerce Clause was fairly adjudicated to allow the feds to prohibit you from feeding your own homegrown feed to your own homegrown livestock? Which ridiculous ruling is part of the case law allowing nearly infinite CC creativity.
 
763Boldwin
� � � ID: 4011341512
� � � Wed, Dec 15, 2010, 18:02
Double-checking Swiss laws, each male must take gun training, is given a full auto version of what is one of the most accurate assault rifles in the word. He is required to store that weapon and ammo at his home until he ages out of the militia at 30.

Here's a shocker, the EU is fighting this.
 
764Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Thu, Dec 16, 2010, 00:41
#762: That is an example of the Commerce Clause being stretched too far, IMO. And I believe it to be a clear example of it being stretched too far by pretty much any reasonable person.

Yet SCOTUS deferred to the Congress in that case specifically because of the Proper and Necessary clause. This is why the individual mandate will be found constitutional, should the question ever arise to the Court.
 
765boikin
� � � ID: 532592112
� � � Thu, Dec 16, 2010, 12:36
And do you really feel the Commerce Clause was fairly adjudicated to allow the feds to prohibit you from feeding your own homegrown feed to your own homegrown livestock? Which ridiculous ruling is part of the case law allowing nearly infinite CC creativity.

is there a citation for this?
 
766Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Thu, Dec 16, 2010, 15:08
Wickard (1942)
 
767boikin
� � � ID: 532592112
� � � Thu, Dec 16, 2010, 17:55
Kind of interesting that it was unanimous decision...I also find it kind of interesting because i am sure that when they wrote the constitution that this is not what they had in mind given that they had just fought a war to stop what they considered over intrusive government.
 
768Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Thu, Dec 16, 2010, 18:48
The Commerce clause was intended to be a check on congress. There is no such check on state governments, who can go far beyond the US Congress in many areas. Massachusetts, for example, requires the purchase of health insurance by its citizens, and has for years.

I'll leave it to the smarter people to discuss whether the Commerce Clause meets the intentions of the Founding Fathers. I tend to think the Founding Fathers were more concerned with flexibility and growth of the Constitution than they were enshrining in stone their own non-unanimous beliefs in governance.

The last letter in this series of comments on Andrew Sullivan does good work in summing the state of things. Conservatives haven't really gotten together to put forth a coherent and consistent oppositional policy on the individual mandate, except a kind of "overturn at all costs" politics about it.
 
769Boldwin
� � � ID: 541135179
� � � Fri, Dec 17, 2010, 10:36
I tend to think the Founding Fathers were more concerned with flexibility and growth of the Constitution than they were enshrining in stone their own non-unanimous beliefs in governance. - PD

There is no mystery at all what their prime concern was. It was to delay forever if possible, the ineluctable slide into tyranny. How many times did they need to emphasize that theme? Everyone they gave any power to was given another counterbalance to prevent too much government power from accumulating. No they were way past worrying about the redcoats when they discussed tyranny. They were worried about plain ole human nature. Concern to prevent tyranny was their universal concern.
 
770Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Fri, Dec 17, 2010, 12:55
It was to delay forever if possible, the ineluctable slide into tyranny

Actually, it wasn't. If it was, they would never have given the power to vote to the people. The rabbling and conflicting voices raised by the Founding Fathers would never have inserted the Necessary and Proper clause into the Constitution if their prime concern was that Congress would suddenly not reflect the people's will.

The great American Experiment is, in fact, the exact opposite of what you believe it to be. And it is because they believed that government is for the people and by the people. I'm not saying they didn't put into place checks and balances. But they also took great pains to enable peaceful transitions of power, amending the Constitution should new needs arise, and to trust in a self-correcting process.
 
771Building 7
� � � Leader
� � � ID: 171572711
� � � Fri, Dec 17, 2010, 13:26
None of the Founding Fathers would agree that... ordering citizens to purchase health insurance or face a penalty....is Constitutional. Nobody who signed the Constitution would agree with that. But you liberals know what's best, more than they do. Limited government was their mantra.
 
772Canadian Hack
� � � ID: 457241711
� � � Fri, Dec 17, 2010, 13:54
B7

You made a statement which is not a fact. It is opinion dressed up as fact. There is no way to reliably know what the founding fathers would say given today's situation. You are making a wild guess and pretending it is factual.
 
773Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Fri, Dec 17, 2010, 14:25
None of the founding fathers would agree to their being a standing army either. Let alone understand the worship of the military the Right undertakes pervasively and continuously (all the while selectively quoting the Founding Fathers to justify what they are going to believe anyway).

What they did was trust in a system and a process to handle questions that they could never have foreseen. Because they knew they couldn't figure out every circumstance, let alone agree to how they should be handled.
 
774Building 7
� � � Leader
� � � ID: 171572711
� � � Fri, Dec 17, 2010, 17:07
Actually I spoke with them all, and it was unanimous. Of course, it is my opinion. A reasoned opinion based on their wanting a limited government.

Hack.....Do you think the founding fathers would be in favor of ordering citizens to purchase a $10,000 health insurance policy or else go to jail. What is your opinion on that?
 
775Boldwin
� � � ID: 251181720
� � � Fri, Dec 17, 2010, 21:13
The great American Experiment is, in fact, the exact opposite of what you believe it to be. And it is because they believed that government is for the people and by the people. -PD

Yeah, and that's why you still think Obama/Pelosi/technocrats should steamroll right over the historic tsunami that just repudiated them. Just keep shoving the Obama agenda down our throats with your superior vision of the 'great American Experiment'.

Remember which party largely refused to hold townhalls? You are in no position to lecture anybody about 'for the people and by the people'.
 
776Canadian Hack
� � � ID: 457241711
� � � Fri, Dec 17, 2010, 21:14
B7

I have no idea what the founding fathers would say. I doubt they would be unaninmous for or against it, but I have no possible way of knowing and neither do you. However, you have the hubris to claim you can read the minds of people you never met and I do not.
 
777Building 7
� � � Leader
� � � ID: 171572711
� � � Sat, Dec 18, 2010, 08:10
Take a course in American history and check back later. Nobody would have even dreamed up that legislation.
 
778Canadian Hack
� � � ID: 457241711
� � � Sat, Dec 18, 2010, 09:15
Nobody would have dreamed up the circumstances that exist today in the 18th century and hence nobody would have dreamed up the potential solutions that would exist. That doesn't mean that given an understanding of the issues the founding fathers would be for or against the legislative solutions that have been selected.

Your position that you can read their minds and they would agree with you is pure fantasy. It is amazing how often people (usually dead ones)and characters (gods for example) who cannot possibly speak up are cited as being "on our side". Its propaganda in your case and in all such cases.
 
779Boldwin
� � � ID: 321113189
� � � Sat, Dec 18, 2010, 10:13
If it's unknowable then we can ignore the constitution, huh Hack? Maybe given today's realities they would be governing like Pol Pot. Nothing can be excluded on constitutional grounds then.
 
780Canadian Hack
� � � ID: 457241711
� � � Sat, Dec 18, 2010, 10:50
Boldwin and his famous strawman resurface.
 
781Boldwin
� � � ID: 321113189
� � � Sat, Dec 18, 2010, 10:56
Go ahead and refute you current argument then. Can we know the original intent well enuff to follow their principles and disqualify the unconstitutional or will the other side always be able to claim original intent is unknowable?
 
782Boldwin
� � � ID: 321113189
� � � Sat, Dec 18, 2010, 11:01
BTW, you are the one with the strawman argument. B7 and I have never claimed mindreading was required to get at original intent. The FF wrote voluminously, comprehensively and with exquisite precision.
 
783Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Sat, Dec 18, 2010, 12:09
#775: You seem to be forgetting the election which rolled over the GOP just two years before. I'd take your points about elections a lot more seriously if you learned any lessons from them.

You seriously want to get into an argument about the 2010 election, in which voters, by and large, were lied to and cast votes based upon factual errors foisted upon them? Voters, by and large, were tooled by the GOP political machinery. And this is the historic election we should all follow? Ha. Build a house of cards much?

#782: The Federalist Papers, for example, should be required reading. So long as they are read with the idea that they are, at their heart, political spin.
 
784Boldwin
� � � ID: 321113189
� � � Sat, Dec 18, 2010, 12:26
the 2010 election, in which voters, by and large, were lied to and cast votes based upon factual errors foisted upon them?

Indeed, we were explicitly promised a post-racial, post-partisan president.
 
785Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Sat, Dec 18, 2010, 15:02
A president who continues to hold his hand out to the GOP but gets it slapped and slapped isn't to blame for the GOP not working with him. Not having your side willing to work with the President even on simple things (like verifying that the Russians are keeping their nukes safe, for instance) means you are in no position to blame the President for being "partisan."

Again: Your tic is showing. Projections are an ugly thing.
 
786Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Tue, Jan 04, 2011, 10:20
A constitutional scholar weighs in on the health care lawsuits.

FWIW I think he's dead right on this stuff.
 
787Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Wed, Jan 05, 2011, 11:13
New GOP House decides to suspend its own spending rules to try to overturn health care.

This is the point at which their talking points clash. Will they work on cutting the deficit? Or will they work on overturning the health care law? they can't have both.

This was a favorite trick of the GOP during the Bush Administration. They put large parts of the "War on Terror" off-budget in order to message the numbers of the federal budget.

Cantor, as usual, looks pretty stupid trying to explain this all away.
 
788Farn @ work
� � � ID: 3002610
� � � Thu, Jan 06, 2011, 11:10
2nd patient denied coverage in AZ dies
 
789bibA
� � � ID: 48627713
� � � Mon, Jan 17, 2011, 12:19
Some surprising numbers seem to indicate that a majority of people are against a repeal of Obama's health care reforms
 
790Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Mon, Jan 17, 2011, 12:29
The more people know what the law actually is and does, the more they support it.

On the flip side, the more people believe that the law does something it doesn't (death panels, government-funded abortions, etc) the less likely they are to support it.
 
791Tree, not at home
� � � ID: 3910441615
� � � Thu, Jan 20, 2011, 14:00
butting this thread to the top.

no reason for the third thread if it's going to have such a blatantly silly and inaccuate name.
 
792Tree, not at home
� � � ID: 3910441615
� � � Mon, Jan 24, 2011, 16:31
butt
 
793Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Mon, Jan 24, 2011, 17:19
Dems ask Cantor if the GOP will require seniors to refund the government for checks sent to them under the Health Care law the GOP just voted to repeal.

Cantor is being especially weaselly on the point. I guess, like the 2000 election, no one in the GOP thought to ask: "What would happen if we got to do whatever we wanted to?"
 
798DWetzel
� � � ID: 31111810
� � � Wed, Jan 26, 2011, 18:35
Awesome. Let's leave it all in the hands of the insurance companies, they do fine.

Or, maybe they're just going to drop cancer patients over 2 cent payment errors.
 
799Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Mon, Jan 31, 2011, 15:48
Just read that a GOP-appointed judge in Florida ruled that the individual mandate is unconstitutional. No link--sorry. And I haven't read the opinion yet either.

Yet another reason for SCOTUS to get the final ruling on this. And they will.
 
800Khahan
� � � ID: 373143013
� � � Mon, Jan 31, 2011, 16:07
PD, apparently the judge ruled the whole law unconstitutional. on the grounds that, "U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson accepted without trial the states' argument that the new law violates people's rights by forcing them to buy health insurance by 2014 or face penalties."


Frankly, I agree. Its an overextension of the commerce clause. The federal government does NOT have the right to tell me to buy something or levy a tax against me. Not in this country. I'm sure the SCOTUS will get this one right.

I do believe health care in this country is in bad shape and needs overhauled/regulated. But Obama's plan is not the answer. It cannot be the answer. It is unconstitutional.
 
801Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Mon, Jan 31, 2011, 16:20
Actually, he declared the individual mandate unconstitutional, but because there was no severability clause the whole thing is tossed as a result.

Typically, complicated laws like this have a clause at the end, specifying that if any part is declared null and void by a competent court with proper jurisdiction, the rest will continue as law (i.e., only the nullified part gets severed out).

There was no such clause in that bill, for some mystifying (to me) reason. Anyone know more about this as to why this pro-forma clause was not included?

The judge only ruled on the individual mandate, that I can find. So even the parts that are clearly within Congress' mandate are tossed because of that.

I'm not sure I'm going to spend much time reading the reasoning. SCOTUS will get the final word and that's that.
 
802walk
� � � ID: 348442710
� � � Mon, Jan 31, 2011, 17:04
I am not asking this rhetorically, but seriously. How is the health care requirement that one have medical insurance different than laws requiring one to have automobile insurance? Is that one can decline to own a car as their choice (but one cannot decline to like live as a choice)?
 
803Khahan
� � � ID: 373143013
� � � Mon, Jan 31, 2011, 17:09
Walk - the laws that require auto insurance are mandated by individual states.

It is also a priviledge to drive and own a car. The requirement to have insurance is tied to that. No insurance, no car registration.

There is no penalty for not having insurance. There is a penalty for not having a car insured (ie, if you don't own a car you don't have to have auto insurance).

In the case of the health insurance they are threatening fines if you do not comply with them by purchasing something that you may not feel you need.
 
804Building 7
� � � Leader
� � � ID: 171572711
� � � Mon, Jan 31, 2011, 17:13
One is required to buy auto insurance, only if they plan on driving.

One is required to buy health insurance, no matter what.
........................

So the government cannot order me to buy a $10,000 health insurance policy I don't want. Nice.
 
805Building 7
� � � Leader
� � � ID: 171572711
� � � Mon, Jan 31, 2011, 17:23
There was no such clause in that bill, for some mystifying (to me) reason. Anyone know more about this as to why this pro-forma clause was not included?

* If people would have been given time to read it, they may have corrected it.

* They thought it was on page 2217, but it turns out it was not.

* Whoever wrote it wanted the whole bill tossed, if the individual mandate got tossed.

* The R's wanted it in there, but they were not listened to. If there was a screwup it was a D screwup.

 
806Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Mon, Jan 31, 2011, 19:01
Well, I don't know the reason, though it *seems* sloppy to me. I genuinely don't know, which is why I brought it up.

And I'm willing to bet dollars to donuts that more Democratic legislators read that bill than Republicans read any of Bush's budget bills, No Child Left Behind, the Patriot Act, or the Medicare Prescription Drug Reform law.

The rebuttal to most of the Right's blustering these days is: The George W. Bush Administration.
 
807Building 7
� � � Leader
� � � ID: 171572711
� � � Wed, Feb 02, 2011, 13:53
Bill would require all S.D. citizens to buy a gun

If they can make you buy health insurance, they can make you buy a gun.
 
808Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Wed, Feb 02, 2011, 14:01
If by "they" you mean the US Congress, then yes. If by "they" you mean the state of South Dakota then no. SD doesn't have the Commerce Clause to back them up.
 
809Building 7
� � � Leader
� � � ID: 171572711
� � � Wed, Feb 02, 2011, 14:35
So you think the U.S. Congress can pass a bill ordering you to buy a gun, and that would be Constitutional?

Why would South Dakota have an interstate commerce clause if South Dakota laws only apply in South Dakota? So you think South Dakota cannot pass a law requiring its citizens to buy a gun? How does that violate the U.S. Constitution?

 
810Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Wed, Feb 02, 2011, 15:19
The Commerce Clause is pretty damn broad. And doesn't apply to the individual states (it is a right vested, constitutionally, in the US Congress).

I don't know the limits of the Commerce Clause, but the fact that the Supreme Court has ruled that the Commerce Clause allows Congress to fine someone for feeding wheat they grew themselves to their own cows, I'd have to say the limits are pretty far.

The South Dakota bill is a stunt, pure and simple.
 
811Pancho Villa
� � � ID: 597172916
� � � Wed, Feb 02, 2011, 15:41
From the link in #807:

�Do I or the other cosponsors believe that the State of South Dakota can require citizens to buy firearms? Of course not. But at the same time, we do not believe the federal government can order every citizen to buy health insurance,� he said.

Does he believe hospital emergency rooms should be forced to treat everyone who comes through the doors with a gunshot wound regardless of ability to pay?
 
812walk
� � � ID: 348442710
� � � Wed, Feb 02, 2011, 16:15
Aaaaaaaaah, and therein lies the rub. As usual, PV with an excellent point. Of course it's a very anti-libertarian matter to force everyone to have health insurance, but the practicalities of the situation overwhelmingly indicate that something of this nature needs to be done to ENsure that:

- disadvantaged folks have access to affordable healthcare
- folks do not get screwed by for-profit companies that have no vested interested in the health and well-being of their customers, by definition
- we do not pay exhorbitant amounts of money to cover inefficient medical treatment (ER visits in lieu of doctor visits).

At the end of the day, the opposition to healthcare is basically an opposition to a more level playing field. The rich want to stay richer, and it's okay if some other loser gets sick and cannot get treatment, gets their insurance coverage pulled, etc. As long as it aint me. As long as it does not cut into my wealth. Very decent.

The automobile analogy is gray. It's not a privilege anymore to own or drive a car -- not when almost everyone does (except me! NYC). Owning a car has morphed into a standard, like living. So, if I choose not to have auto insurance and hurt someone, I have put them in a financially disadvantageous situation due to my irresponsibility. Well, if I walk into an ER to get treated for a sinus infection, and wrack up huge costs, that ultimately I do not pay for, and make everyone else pay for in taxes, that's also irresponsible. The solution in a civilized society is not to deny them access to the ER though, but it's also not to ignore the problem (and the problem of 50,000,000 uninsured people and sick people denied coverage).

Just like the way our current healthcare system has morphed into an untenable solution for millions, and just like the way open guns have morphed into a situation with far too many gun-related injuries and deaths. The intent is great, in practice it's awful. As things evolve, we need to make them better, and evolve with them, and not stubbornly stick to 240 year old rules that were not meant to be cast in stone. Societies evolve. Laws should evolve with them. The greater good.
 
813boikin
� � � ID: 532592112
� � � Wed, Feb 02, 2011, 16:20
I like how it is always big corporations that are evil doers...I mean the doctors are free to provide their services free of charge.
 
814Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Wed, Feb 02, 2011, 16:21
I don't think they would be allowed to, as employees of the hospitals.
 
815walk
� � � ID: 348442710
� � � Wed, Feb 02, 2011, 16:29
boikin, please, that is kinda naive. Do you see the revenues and profits reported by the insurance companies? They should be not-for-profit. To me, it makes little sense, theoretically, that folks get rich off of others' illness.

Doctors cannot afford to provide services free, but they also don't have to charge excessive amounts, either to be really rich or to accommodate malpractice and other costs associated with our current broken healthcare, I mean, healthinsurance, system.
 
816sarge33rd
� � � ID: 45072817
� � � Wed, Feb 02, 2011, 16:57
You can work for free too boikin. That is, unless you want to have your lights come on when you flick that lil wall mounted switch, or have food in the fridge, or even have a fridge for that matter.

So tell me boikin, do YOU work for free?
 
817Building 7
� � � Leader
� � � ID: 171572711
� � � Wed, Feb 02, 2011, 16:59
As things evolve, we need to make them better, and evolve with them, and not stubbornly stick to 240 year old rules that were not meant to be cast in stone. Societies evolve. Laws should evolve with them. The greater good.

Are you familiar with Article V of the Constitution?

Just to be safe, I wouldn't move to South Dakota if I were you, walk.
 
818walk
� � � ID: 348442710
� � � Wed, Feb 02, 2011, 17:09
Building 7 -- that is the most "please insert joke here" statement I have seen in a while: "I wouldn't move to South Dakota." Saying that to anyone is funny, let alone a NYer.

Yes, I am familiar. Please. You get my meaning, but if you want to take me literally, then we won't be able to have any discussion because typing and internet does not will not allow us to fill the gap between our modes of thinking (not judgmental here, just an observation).

Sticking with pieces of the constitution that fits one's own selfish interests (this is in no way directed at you), is not what I think is good for the people. We can have it both ways: capitalism, wealth, and a little bit of common sense. Social security did not bring down our country. Neither did medicare (although unbudgeted wars paid for by debt in Afghanistan and Iraq are another issue).
 
819boikin
� � � ID: 532592112
� � � Wed, Feb 02, 2011, 17:30
To me, it makes little sense, theoretically, that folks get rich off of others' illness.

I mean as long as they are not doctors that are getting rich off your sickness.

So tell me boikin, do YOU work for free?

um, actually i do in certain cases.
 
820Building 7
� � � Leader
� � � ID: 171572711
� � � Wed, Feb 02, 2011, 17:33
The Texas Constitution has over 200 amendments. Every couple years, we get to vote on 5 or 6 new ones. Our city amended their Constitution or bylaws to change a couple words and a semicolon.

They should amend the U.S. Constitution to change Article V and make it easier to amend it in the future. Make it 60% or bypass those blowhards in the Senate or something. I'm the only one I've ever heard with that idea.

That second amendment is not well worded.
The 10th amendment needs clarified.
Amend it to allow abortions if you are going to allow them anyways.
Any of this settled law nonsense can be made official with an amendment.
Social Security should require an amendment.
Obamcare should require an amendment.
There are more. That's off the top of my head
 
821boikin
� � � ID: 532592112
� � � Wed, Feb 02, 2011, 17:37
boikin, please, that is kinda naive. Do you see the revenues and profits reported by the insurance companies? They should be not-for-profit. are they all for profit now? I think not.
 
822Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Wed, Feb 02, 2011, 17:45
?

can you explain this?
 
823Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Wed, Feb 02, 2011, 18:22
Reagan's Solicitor General: Health care law is constitutional.
 
824Boldwin
� � � ID: 57152218
� � � Wed, Feb 02, 2011, 21:11
The real wildcard is that presidents even on the R side have been appointing SCOTUS judges interested in eventually integrating the USA into international law and they will need the ability to administer socialism to do so.

Judges who still go by the US Constitution will strike it down until then.
 
825Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Wed, Feb 02, 2011, 21:15
Unless, of course, their copy of the Constitution includes the Commerce Clause. Then they have to turn activist to move their political agenda ahead, since they failed to do so at the legislative level.
 
826Boldwin
� � � ID: 57152218
� � � Wed, Feb 02, 2011, 21:30
Why even have a Supreme Court? Just have a Dem stand out front and rubberstamp every case that comes their way with: 'Commerce Clause'.
 
827Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Wed, Feb 02, 2011, 22:34
You won't get an argument from me that the commerce clause is too open-ended.

And in this particular case, you simply can't argue that it doesn't exist, as the two GOP judges have.
 
828Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Fri, Feb 04, 2011, 22:37
For those keeping track at home: Mississippi judge tosses health care law challenge.
 
829Frick
� � � ID: 5310541617
� � � Mon, Feb 07, 2011, 09:59
An article by Indiana's Governor Mitch Daniels and potential changes to the health care act.

WSJ Online

The requests seem reasonable, but I'm skeptical about the request for the ability to regulate who may offer plans.
 
830Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Mon, Feb 07, 2011, 10:26
Pretty overblown, if you ask me. He starts out by calling out most of the claims about the law as being, essentially, lies, but provides no proof.

States are required to set up exchanges, but he seems to be using the fact that they already provide benefit eligibility work as some kind of bug (the implication being that if they were starting from scratch, without information on people's income, dependents, etc that this would be better. WTF?).

The overall tone (we will agree to follow the law, if you do this and that and the other) is just petulant.

Yes--more flexibility for the states should be the norm. And, in fact, most states have received waivers simply for asking (which, as many have pointed out, is a bug, not a feature). And it is probably worth pointing out that Daniels, among many on the Right, have previously said that they don't believe people will utilize the exchanges--so which is it, Governor?

 
831Frick
� � � ID: 5310541617
� � � Mon, Feb 07, 2011, 13:27
I'll admit that I don't follow this closely, but where has Daniels said that doesn't believe people will utilize the exchanges? Indiana has an exchange for low income citizens already, but apparently it must be closed to comply with the ACA. So which is Mr. President? Everyone must have access to exchanges, but only the exchanges that we dictate?

GovMonitor
 
832Wilmer McLean
� � � ID: 5015685
� � � Tue, Feb 08, 2011, 06:58
If a Federal judge rules that Obamacare (with no severability clause) is unconstitutional does that mean the Federal governemnt has to halt Obamacare's implementation?
 
833Wilmer McLean
� � � ID: 5015685
� � � Tue, Feb 08, 2011, 06:59
RE 832

government
 
834Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Tue, Feb 08, 2011, 08:08
Asked and answered?

:)
 
835Building 7
� � � Leader
� � � ID: 171572711
� � � Tue, Feb 08, 2011, 09:36
In the Florida case, the judge has allowed Obamacare to proceed while the government appeals. Either he does not have much faith in his ruling, or that's just the way it works.
 
836Wilmer McLean
� � � ID: 5015685
� � � Sat, Feb 19, 2011, 04:57
Feds ask Florida judge to clarify meaning of health care ruling (My Fox Orlando)

Updated: Friday, 18 Feb 2011, 12:08 PM EST
Published : Friday, 18 Feb 2011, 11:36 AM EST

The Justice Department has asked a federal judge to clarify the immediate impact of his ruling last month that declared the new health care law unconstitutional, The Wall Street Journal reported Friday.

US District Court Judge Roger Vinson in Florida, considering a challenge to the health care overhaul by a group of 26 states, ruled Jan. 31 that the entire law must be declared void. Judge Vinson found only one part of the law unconstitutional -- the provision requiring individuals to carry health coverage or pay a penalty -- but he said it was impossible to disentangle that part from the rest of the law.

The ruling left considerable confusion because Judge Vinson did not issue an injunction halting the law, while suggesting that his ruling effectively functioned as one. Some states concluded that they need not obey the law any longer. The Obama administration has continued to carry it out.

The individual-insurance mandate does not go into effect until 2014, but other pieces of the law are already moving forward.

Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said the government filed the motion "to confirm that the court did not intend to disrupt the many programs currently in effect..."

 
837Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Wed, Feb 23, 2011, 19:28
A new week, another federal judge weighs in on the health care bill.

This one was in support of thelaw.

More reading material for SCOTUS.
 
838Mattinglyinthehall
� � � ID: 37838313
� � � Sun, Feb 27, 2011, 01:28
 
839Boldwin
� � � ID: 351122619
� � � Sun, Feb 27, 2011, 04:31
Now that last one is a lot less than it appears to be. Imagine 5 judges rule on whether your marriage license is valid and 2 rule it isn't. The three, no change...no big whoop. Two rule you aren't really married and your life is turned upside down...big whoop.
 
840Tree
� � � ID: 320371412
� � � Tue, Apr 12, 2011, 00:58
a year ago, i was denied insurance for a minor pre-existing condition.

yesterday, i was accepted and enrolled into an insurance plan, by and large due to health care reform.

thank you very much for getting this legislation passed, because i'll be damned, something my government did had a positive effect on my life, despite all the doom and gloom the American Right would have you believe.
 
841J-Bar
� � � ID: 203151419
� � � Thu, Apr 14, 2011, 20:24
a point of reform that had bi-partisan support and you are very welcome. A point the American Left would not have you believe.
 
843Mith
� � � ID: 5631099
� � � Thu, Apr 14, 2011, 21:11
a point of reform that had bi-partisan support and you are very welcome.

With the possible exception of the public option, all of the individual parts of the ACA polled favorably.

But that doesn't necessarily make support for any of those measures "bipartisan". How did Republicans and conservatives poll on the pre-existing conditions issue?

And correct me if I'm wrong but my recollection is that whenever registered republicans were polled on whether to scrap the whole legislation or just the elements they disagreed with, they overwhelmingly supported scraping the whole thing.
 
844Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Thu, Apr 14, 2011, 23:22
a point of reform that had bi-partisan support and you are very welcome.

Too bad the GOP never proposed it, and voted against it (proudly) when included with other popular measures of insurance reform.
 
845Mith
� � � ID: 23217270
� � � Fri, Apr 15, 2011, 00:26
That's ok. J-bar graciously accepts your thanks anyway.
 
846Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Sun, Apr 24, 2011, 22:10
An excellent perspective from an ER doc on why standard market economics won't reduce health care costs by much.

#3 in his list is, I think, the crux of the argument: Purchasing power is concentrated in the hands of a very small number of "consumers."

In other words, vast amounts of the health care costs are sucked up by a (relatively) small number of people.

Some of this can be helped, of a sort: Access to health care insurance (particularly relatively inexpensive preventative care, testing, and physicals) can help diagnosis health problems much early, driving down costs for those patients (and meaning less cost has to be shared). And the issue of drug prices aren't addressed in the piece, but is the fastest growing cost in health care. But the piece is worth a look.
 
847DWetzel
� � � ID: 49962710
� � � Mon, Apr 25, 2011, 10:16
Well, it's pretty obvious that few people suck up hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of dollars. And that allocating those funds that could save a bunch of lives to preserve one life for a couple months is a dumb idea, economically speaking.

But that there's death panels.

In stark contrast, not letting the vast majority of the population have affordable health care (and thus dooming a percentage of them to preventable death) is just wonderful free market economics (oh, and we're not going to let anyone figure out a way to make stuff more affordable, so more of you can die and leave the expensive docs for us -- but that's not death panels, that's just fun fun fun!)
 
848Boldwin
� � � ID: 43482517
� � � Mon, Apr 25, 2011, 19:02
Show of hands. How many here are still in 'mock the existance of death panels' mode...

...and how many have already shifted seemlessly into 'well of course we need death panels and thank god Obama put them in there' mode?
 
849Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Mon, Apr 25, 2011, 19:19
A.
 
850DWetzel
� � � ID: 31111810
� � � Mon, Apr 25, 2011, 20:42
Well, if you'd rather just have more death, with less panels, I guess that's your choice. If wanting less dead people makes me a socialist, sign me up I guess.
 
851Boldwin
� � � ID: 43482517
� � � Mon, Apr 25, 2011, 21:00
Yes, we already had you down for option B.
 
852Tree
� � � ID: 320371412
� � � Mon, Apr 25, 2011, 23:02
you left off option "C" for "crazy".
 
853DWetzel
� � � ID: 278201415
� � � Tue, Apr 26, 2011, 10:18
So, I'm anti-death and Boldwin's pro-death. Glad we got that covered.

(On another note, these people who try to smear other people by calling them "pro-environment" -- who the hell is "anti-environment"? And why would you want to admit it?)
 
854Boldwin
� � � ID: 43482517
� � � Tue, Apr 26, 2011, 16:05
Yeah, somehow being pro-death panels is anti-death.

Only in the sense that Nazis thot the T4 program was good for the nation's health. Or the Scientologists who think euthanizing anyone below level 2 makes the rest of us safer and healthier.
 
863Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Wed, May 11, 2011, 14:22
I came across and *excellent* column the other day about medical devices, and how the hospitals have, in effect, conspired to close the market to new and improved devices because of kickbacks from sales of "approved" device manufacturers.

But damn it all--my computer rebooted last night and I lost the column. But I'll hunt for it again. It is a perfect example of how hidden costs inflate the overall health care costs that we all pay.

Meanwhile, just came across this on AS:

 
864boikin
� � � ID: 532592112
� � � Wed, May 11, 2011, 14:31
PD, hope you find the rest of the article though graphic seems pretty accurate though I am not sure about the out patient cost part because it does not consider how much it would cost to do in inpatient. Yes maybe the procedure would be cheaper but then you have to calculate the hospital stay and what not.
 
865Frick
� � � ID: 5310541617
� � � Wed, May 11, 2011, 14:43
I would question the 5x vs 3x average? Do we pay doctors more? Or is the average income in the US. lower. I would guess that we pay our doctors more, but that isn't clear. It also appears that they are applying that math to all health care workers, not just doctors. Are we paying our nurses more than other countries?
 
866Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Wed, May 11, 2011, 16:01
Some comparisons are tough to make (since the US has many more specialties), but at first blush U.S. doctors make a boatload more money that in other countries.
 
867Frick
� � � ID: 5310541617
� � � Wed, May 11, 2011, 16:31
You have to factor in the currency conversion, which depending on when this was done, the Euro range was 1.2 to 1.6x the dollar. I'm not sure how adding in dentists effects the rates for the US vs other countries. The standardization of 2080 hours/year for US doctors was also not clear IMO.

Overall, I highly doubt that cutting doctor incomes by 40% would solve a significant portion of our health care issues. It would potentially drive out some potential doctors, as they could decide to pursue other careers. The study also didn't reference the amount training that is required to be a doctor in each country. It could be roughly equivalent, but removing years of schooling could have a decent impact on how much a doctor needs to make to justify the decision to become a doctor.

I wasn't trying to nitpick, I agree that massive changes our needed to our current system for it to remain viable over the long-term.

The cost of medications in the US is another example. They are higher in the US due to a lack of governmental regulation. Drug companies push more of their R&D costs onto US consumers. They are trying to maximize their profits, but due to regulations in other countries, they can't charge equal prices across the world. Should the US adopt similar pricing policies for new drugs? That is a valid discussion item, but the reason for the higher prices isn't greedy drug companies, it is other countries artificially lowering the price.
 
868boikin
� � � ID: 532592112
� � � Wed, May 11, 2011, 16:42
The cost of medications in the US is another example. They are higher in the US due to a lack of governmental regulation. Drug companies push more of their R&D costs onto US consumers. They are trying to maximize their profits, but due to regulations in other countries, they can't charge equal prices across the world. Should the US adopt similar pricing policies for new drugs? That is a valid discussion item, but the reason for the higher prices isn't greedy drug companies, it is other countries artificially lowering the price.

I think the question that should be asked is the US paying for the world's healthcare. Other countries can get away with regulating drug prices because the drug companies know that they will make it back in the US.
 
869Boldwin
� � � ID: 27428117
� � � Wed, May 11, 2011, 16:44
Two huge huge obfuscations in that.

1) It's not simply the malpractice awards per se. It's the steps that have to be taken to avoid malpractice awards. This can easily multiply the cost of medicine by 5x. Five tests where only one is really needed. Happens all the time.

2) Administration costs aren't just handling insurance. They also stem from government burden.
 
870Seattle Zen
� � � ID: 10732616
� � � Wed, May 11, 2011, 17:01
Excellent graphic in post 863, PD.
 
871Frick
� � � ID: 5310541617
� � � Thu, May 12, 2011, 08:41
Re: 868 I agree, that was my point, but you did an excellent job of simplifying it.

Regarding malpractice, is that the cost of just malpractice suits, or does it include the cost of malpractice insurance? I remember reading an article several years ago about some states having a shortage of OB-GYNs, due to the the cost of malpractice insurance making it not worth being an OB-GYN. The doctors were either moving to another state, or just being a general physician.
 
872Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Wed, May 18, 2011, 16:32
#863/864: Found it!

Prepare to get pissed off.
 
873Boldwin
� � � ID: 374391816
� � � Wed, May 18, 2011, 18:50
Outstanding link.
 
874Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Wed, May 18, 2011, 18:51
Like me, you were probably gnashing your teeth the more you read.
 
875Boldwin
� � � ID: 374391816
� � � Wed, May 18, 2011, 19:24
Here's a cheap and successful cure that is an alternative to western anti-biotics...just when we urgently need to find replacements to handle the growing super-bug problem.

A cheap solution from soviet science that is virtually unavailable in the west.

Boldwin - midwest distributor for unexpected.
 
876Khahan
� � � ID: 373143013
� � � Thu, May 19, 2011, 08:56
Got to give you credit on this one Boldwin. I talked to my wife about Phage therapy (she's a microbiologist in R&D at a major international pharma and does grant reviews for the NIH).

She said phage therapy is very interesting (which is pretty high praise from her) and has a lot of potential. But we shouldn't look for it here in the US. Why? Because you cannot patent a virus. And without that patent there is no incentive for any company to do any real research into it.

 
877Perm Dude
� � � ID: 5510572522
� � � Thu, May 19, 2011, 09:09
There isn't as much incentive, for sure. But biotech companies' business model requires patent applications at every step, so it is probably unlikely.
 
878bibA
� � � ID: 48627713
� � � Thu, May 19, 2011, 09:52
Phage-therapy is a very interesting subject. It has been around for decades. It was part of the plot in the well known novel "Arrowsmith", written in the 1920s.

Just being a layman, it seems to me that widespread use of it would have to be quite ponderous, and thus expensive.
 
879Boldwin
� � � ID: 374391816
� � � Thu, May 19, 2011, 12:35
The list of superbugs that will eat your face off no matter what antibiotic you take is growing at an alarming rate and the list with only a few remaining effective antibiotics shows that this is only the beginning.

Time for the 'king of waivers' to issue one even I'd agree with.
 
880Boldwin
� � � ID: 64132020
� � � Fri, May 20, 2011, 22:28
Wow!

The Cure For All Addictions!

Just amazing. If you know an alcoholic do them a favor.

...From PD's 100 best journalism link.
 
883Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Fri, Aug 05, 2011, 09:34
SCOTUSblog with a series of long posts by guest writers debating the Constitutionality of the ACA.
 
884sarge33rd
      ID: 1964421
      Fri, Aug 05, 2011, 12:35
Thanks for that link PD.

I particularly like this paragraph:

The question for the Supreme Court thus will be whether it should create a new, unprecedented exception here to Congress�s power. Put differently, should the Court deny �we the people� the ability through our elected representatives to choose how to address our national health care crisis? As I am sure is clear from that formulation, my view is no. And I believe the Supreme Court will agree. The Sixth Circuit�s recent ruling upholding the ACA increases confidence that the Supreme Court will get it right, especially in light of Judge Sutton�s powerful concurrence.

from this link:

The simple case for the ACAs constitutionality
 
885sarge33rd
      ID: 1964421
      Fri, Aug 05, 2011, 14:11
Interesting read, those arguments for/against the ACA. Perhaps in truth, the most compelling argument against (and itss really more a warning than an argument) is the first one GOTCHA.

In it, the writer points out previouis cases, apparently supported by precedent which were still "lost" because of "gotcha" questions which were not adequately answered. Here, the gotcha question is just what DOES limit or WHERE is the limit, on Congressional power under the commerce clause? (Cited example delt with campaign finance reform and ultimately the gotcha revolved around the 1st Amendment.)

That the national health bill is a substantial portion of the national economy, is undeniable. (To argue otherwise, is to make entitlement programs in this arena insignificant and thus not worthy of time/effort to reform.) As such, it would fit under the Commerce Clause and Congressional authority. I think the limit here, and the bane of those who claim if the Govt can require you to buy health insurance then they can require you to buy rutabegas, is no they cant. People with or without health insurance, go to the hospital when need be. Those hospitals MUST provide life saving care, regardless of patients ability to pay. The rest of society, picks up that tab, in the form of higher taxes and higher insurance premiums. The mandate, simply negates the ability of some to "free load".

Now, people do not inevitably buy rutabegas. Stores, are not required by law to provide rutabegas, regardless of a consumers ability to pay. Other people, dont pay higher taxes, because person "A" can not afford a rutabega. Thus, Congress has no authority to require the purchase of rutabegas, or GM automobiles, or airfare in SW, or ...

Therein I think, lies the answer to the GOTCHA question, and thus sustains the power of precedent in deciding the case.
 
886Khahan
      ID: 373143013
      Thu, Aug 11, 2011, 10:09
In the vein of 875, here's an article on potentially the most important 'sick' treatment since penicillan.

thank the researches at MIT for the cure for the common cold and so much more.

Still a few years off. Sounds like they are in the early testing phases, but very promising.
 
887Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Fri, Aug 12, 2011, 18:17
You really have to laff at the argument the WH will have to run past the SCOTUS. And cry, since this kind of idiotic drivel actually does pass SCOTUS muster too often.
An appeals court ruled on Friday that President Barack Obama�s healthcare law requiring Americans to buy healthcare insurance or face a penalty was unconstitutional, a blow to the White House.

The Appeals Court for the 11th Circuit, based in Atlanta, found that Congress exceeded its authority by requiring Americans to buy coverage, but also ruled that the rest of the wide-ranging law could remain in effect. - Yahoo News
Anyway, everyone knows this thing is headed to the Supreme Court, where Anthony Kennedy�s mood will determine whether the interstate commerce clause can be used to force people to buy a product that they cannot buy across state lines. - Bryan Preston, PJ media
 
888sarge33rd
      ID: 1964421
      Fri, Aug 12, 2011, 18:21
Ea sytate, has made it so that Insd doesnt cross state lines. Not the feds. Iowa has different loss-ratio and contract requirements from NE/SD/MN, etc etc etc. Dont look to the Feds, unless you want CONSISTENCY. (aka central point of 'control')
 
889sarge33rd
      ID: 1964421
      Fri, Aug 12, 2011, 18:24
Link in 883 above. gives at least 2 Pro arguments; either of which should carry the day.
 
890Boldwin
      ID: 35615181
      Fri, Aug 12, 2011, 18:26
Republicans in congress at the national level were unanimously in favor of making health insurance policies interstate commerce.

Dems refused that but now want us to be bound by interstate commerce control, to be required to buy a non-interstate product.
 
891sarge33rd
      ID: 1964421
      Fri, Aug 12, 2011, 18:42
Republicans are hell bent on destroying the very idea of federalism. From the looks of the oast ferw months, they are pretty much hell bent on destroying this country.
 
892J-Bar
      ID: 107281218
      Fri, Aug 12, 2011, 19:28
LMAO fear mongering much Do you have anymore? I needed that.
 
893sarge33rd
      ID: 1964421
      Fri, Aug 12, 2011, 20:01
Have you not been paying attention? The Rep mantra has turnbed to "states rights", not at all unloike that of the Confederacy.

The difference? The Confederacy was sopen and honest about their intent to enslave you.
 
894Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Fri, Aug 12, 2011, 21:26
#887: For anyone paying attention, the 3-judge panel actually re-instated the applicability of the Affordable Care Act, when the trial judge said that the whole thing should be tossed. This is actually a half step win for the Administration.

It is all going to SCOTUS we all know. The Commerce Clause argument by those who are against the Act is very, very weak.
 
895Tree
      ID: 41512710
      Mon, Sep 05, 2011, 02:04
Man Dies From Toothache, Couldn't Afford Meds

stuff like that scares the hell out of me.
 
896sarge33rd
      ID: 3884510
      Mon, Sep 05, 2011, 11:05
agreed entirely Tree.
 
897sarge33rd
      ID: 3884510
      Mon, Sep 05, 2011, 11:10
Unless you're Bill Gates or Warren Buffet, you're one illness away from financial ruin on the US

60% of personal BK, is driven by medical expenses.
 
898Wilmer McLean
      ID: 2899151
      Sun, Nov 27, 2011, 05:37
Robert Reich -
In an audio recording from a September 2007 speech to an audience at the UC Berkeley

 
899Boldwin
      ID: 110542611
      Sun, Nov 27, 2011, 11:44
Liberals applauding the end of medical advancement.

WWPPD

What would a pod-person do?

Applaud abandoning the elderly. Hey mom, there's a nice iceflow, just go lie down over there.
 
900Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Sun, Nov 27, 2011, 12:36
Anyone who doesn't realize that using extremely expensive treatments to prolong the lives of the elderly is going to mean all of us pay a lot more probably isn't interested in an honest debate at all on this issue.

The Reich excerpt, while interesting, was not in fact implemented nor has any real policies been advanced along those guidelines. Medicare (our primary means of insuring health care for the elderly), in fact, has been virtually untouched.

And I'm sorry GOP apologists: Your abandonment of science in general means you are no longer permitted to misconstrue anything "liberals" do as being anti-science.
 
901Mith
      ID: 23217270
      Sun, Nov 27, 2011, 12:47
Clearly rock-solid proof that the inclusion of end of life consultations in elderly medical coverage is Ingsoc for mandatory death panels.
 
902sarge33rd
      ID: 1610252611
      Sun, Nov 27, 2011, 13:18
hmmmmm,

B, and one would assume then "Conservatives in general" (assuming you take B at his word as being THE stereo-typical Conservative), would oppose NOT funding multi-million dollar procedures which may add what? 6 months life to a 94 yr old? (Nrs are purely conjecture, pulled from my 5th point of contact)

Now B, who WOULD pay for that?

(A) The Fed/State Govt?
There goes those "entitlement" programs right through the roof.

(B) The Insurance Co?
There goes those premiums, right through the roof.

(C) The individual?
Boy, talk about your "death tax".
 
903Boldwin
      ID: 4110312718
      Sun, Nov 27, 2011, 19:36
This is coming from people who thot letting Terri Schiavo have a drink of water was inappropriate heroic measures.
 
904Tree
      ID: 41512710
      Sun, Nov 27, 2011, 19:40
This is coming from people who thot letting Terri Schiavo have a drink of water was inappropriate heroic measures.

hey, i ate girl scout cookie for her because she was unable.
 
905sarge33rd
      ID: 11022715
      Sun, Nov 27, 2011, 19:41
Terri had long since ceased to "be". Only the shell remained. the person, the "who" she was, was long gone.
 
906Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 37838313
      Sun, Nov 27, 2011, 19:48
Had Terri possessed the function to swallow a drink of water I'd have been with you. Though she already had plenty of water. It took up the area that was previously occupied by her brain.
 
907Boldwin
      ID: 4110312718
      Sun, Nov 27, 2011, 19:54
Except several nurses risked their jobs and lost them to tell us the truth that Terri wasn't that far gone after all. Not at all that far gone. Their sacrifice and inside knowlege beats your trolling.
 
908sarge33rd
      ID: 11022715
      Sun, Nov 27, 2011, 19:57
The ME says differently B. And the ME did the autopsy. Not the nurses. They lose, you are believing those who trumpet your own posturing, regardless of facts. We all know thats what you do.
 
909Tree
      ID: 41512710
      Sun, Nov 27, 2011, 20:23
Except several nurses risked their jobs and lost them to tell us the truth that Terri wasn't that far gone after all. Not at all that far gone.

because, of course, these mysterious nurses are to be believed over countless doctors and medical examiners.

Their sacrifice and inside knowlege beats your trolling.

one day you'll grow up and start acting like an adult. the name calling and constant "OMG! TROLL!" refrain is old. really, really, old.
 
910Boldwin
      ID: 4110312718
      Mon, Nov 28, 2011, 04:02
Half Terri's doctors were on her side. The ones who weren't famous euthanasia pushers.
 
911Boldwin
      ID: 4110312718
      Mon, Nov 28, 2011, 04:25
And the perhaps the second most famous euthanasia pusher in the country is designing this 'healthcare' plan so I'd really not like to have you liberals eating your cookies while you sit on my death panel deciding I get just as much water as you allowed Terri.
 
912DWetzel
      ID: 53326279
      Mon, Nov 28, 2011, 10:17
If I could sit on your death panel, I'd give up all my worldly possessions -- may as well do the world two saintly favors.
 
913Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Mon, Nov 28, 2011, 10:19
"Death panels" and Terri Schiavo.

Are all your policy positions based on discredited myths?
 
914DWetzel
      ID: 53326279
      Mon, Nov 28, 2011, 10:32
Paging Canadian Hack... :)
 
915Boldwin
      ID: 4110312718
      Mon, Nov 28, 2011, 11:33
Well that wouldn't be an 'Independent Payment Advisory Board', now would it?

Not that the real one will be independent either. The 'independence' is independence from the voter's control.
 
916Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Sat, Dec 03, 2011, 20:19
Turns out there's death panels in Obamacare after all
 
917sarge33rd
      ID: 101112311
      Sat, Dec 03, 2011, 20:33
hmmm wont open
 
918Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Sat, Dec 03, 2011, 20:34
Link is messed up above--here's the corrected one

In my new computer, I no longer have the link to the moderator page to just correct it, sorry.

The rule about minimum percentages being used for care is one New Jersey has had for years. A good rule, IMO.
 
919sarge33rd
      ID: 101112311
      Sat, Dec 03, 2011, 20:38
googled and found it:

That would be the provision of the law, called the medical loss ratio, that requires health insurance companies to spend 80% of the consumers� premium dollars they collect�85% for large group insurers�on actual medical care rather than overhead, marketing expenses and profit. Failure on the part of insurers to meet this requirement will result in the insurers having to send their customers a rebate check representing the amount in which they underspend on actual medical care.

This is the true �bomb� contained in Obamacare and the one item that will have more impact on the future of how medical care is paid for in this country than anything we�ve seen in quite some time. Indeed, it is this aspect of the law that represents the true �death panel� found in Obamacare�but not one that is going to lead to the death of American consumers. Rather, the medical loss ratio will, ultimately, lead to the death of large parts of the private, for-profit health insurance industry.

Why? Because there is absolutely no way for-profit health insurers are going to be able to learn how to get by and still make a profit while being forced to spend at least 80 percent of their receipts providing their customers with the coverage for which they paid.


Umm, an 80% loss ratio, is pretty much the norm for health insurance companies, and has been for the past 20 odd years. Every states insurance department, in conjunction with the legislation, has set a loss ratio every company MUST meet, in order to do business in that state. 80%, for individual policies...is the norm. (At least, it was in Iowa and few companies did business in IA that didnt operate also in virtually every other state,)

Far from a bomb, this is what keeps a company from charging a premium 10x what it expects to pay out from the policy terms. THAT, is consumer protection.
 
920Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Sat, Dec 03, 2011, 21:21
Every states insurance department, in conjunction with the legislation, has set a loss ratio every company MUST meet, in order to do business in that state.

What's at issue here is what qualifies a a medical expense.

Here�s an example: For months, health insurance brokers and salespeople have been lobbying to have the commissions they earn for selling an insurer�s program to consumers be included as a �medical expense� for purposes of the rules. HHS has, today, given them the official thumbs down, as well they should have. Selling me a health insurance policy is simply not the same as providing me with the medical care I am entitled to under the policy. Sales is clearly an overhead cost in any business and had HHS included this as a medical cost, it would have signaled that they are not at all serious about enforcing the concept of the medical loss ratio.





 
921sarge33rd
      ID: 101112311
      Sat, Dec 03, 2011, 22:08
Loss ratios, at least in Iowa; have long been claims payments. Point being, the policy must be actuarially projected to payout 80% in claims of the anticipated premium income. Commission, was never a part of the equation, at least not in Iowa.
 
922bibA
      ID: 4057177
      Tue, Jan 31, 2012, 09:13
Iconic skier's death points out U.S. health gap

link
 
923sarge33rd
      ID: 211332319
      Tue, Jan 31, 2012, 12:47
I get a 404 error from bibAs linki, and even google "iconic skiers death", provides a link to the msnbc article, yet also gives the 404 error.

same article, linked to democratic underground
 
924Wilmer McLean
      ID: 2899151
      Sat, Feb 11, 2012, 05:00
"Preventive care � saves money, for families, for businesses, for government, for everybody." -- Barack Obama on Friday, February 10th, 2012 in a briefing at the White House -- rated False (politifact.org)

It�s been a staple of health care politics for years -- the claim that preventive care saves money. A little money up front, lots of money saved on the back end. Patients living longer and healthier lives. That makes sense, right?

But while there�s little doubt that preventive care saves lives, the money is a different story. In general, academic studies do not support the idea that paying for preventive care ultimately saves money.

...

Our ruling

As a general notion, the idea that "preventive care � saves money, for families, for businesses, for government, for everybody" is no more true today than it was in 2009. Yes, preventive measures often save lives and keep patients healthier. Certain preventive measures may save money as well. But the findings of CBO and physicians who have studied the medical literature indicate that Obama�s sweeping generalization that preventive services save money is not accurate. We rate the statement False.


 
925Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Sat, Feb 11, 2012, 16:00
Interesting. I'd like to read more. If true, insurance companies have been horribly horribly wrong about the very things that they are supposed to be good at: risk aversion and cost savings.

The notion of preventative care saving money didn't start with Obama, of course--HMO's are largely the driving force behind the thought.
 
926Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Sat, Feb 11, 2012, 17:50
From the NEJM article PolitiFact references:

Our findings suggest that the broad generalizations made by many presidential candidates can be misleading. These statements convey the message that substantial resources can be saved through prevention. Although some preventive measures do save money, the vast majority reviewed in the health economics literature do not. Careful analysis of the costs and benefits of specific interventions, rather than broad generalizations, is critical. Such analysis could identify not only cost-saving preventive measures but also preventive measures that deliver substantial health benefits relative to their net costs; this analysis could also identify treatments that are cost-saving or highly efficient (i.e., cost-effective).

Maybe PolitiFact is going on the general notion of preventive medicine saving money? Of course, maybe we should really determine what we mean here--after all, very, very few medical procedures actually save money (early cancer screenings, for example, sometimes reveal cancer, which costs a lot of money to treat. Cancer, left untreated until it is too late, can save money through a quick death).

Want to think this through. What if the metric was not direct money saved but longer lives? By that metric, a longer life would result in more taxes paid over a lifetime, for instance.
 
927Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Sat, Feb 11, 2012, 17:52
Here's a paper in Health Affairs which gets at what I am thinking about.
 
928Wilmer McLean
      ID: 2899151
      Sun, Feb 12, 2012, 04:27
RE: 926

What if the metric was not direct money saved but longer lives? By that metric, a longer life would result in more taxes paid over a lifetime, for instance.


Don't forget to add to the metric possible and probable government assistance.

And, on principle I heartedly support saving and extending lives over cost.
 
929Wilmer McLean
      ID: 2899151
      Sun, Feb 12, 2012, 04:38
* heartily
 
930Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Sun, Feb 12, 2012, 12:23
We all get government assistance, Wilmer. But typically taxes overcome direct government assistance costs.

Honestly, I would support a policy of longer and healthier lives despite the demonstration of government net costs. I can't think of any better way for a government to spend tax dollars, in fact. But I'm still reading about preventative care costs vs saving health care costs down the line. The best I'm hearing is "it depends on the care" which isn't really helping me at this point.

 
931sarge33rd
      ID: 4717718
      Sun, Feb 12, 2012, 12:47
US Catholic Bishops, oppose no charge womens health care:

link

In reality, the bishops suggested, that meant the employer would still in effect be subsidizing the benefit, because the insurance company would likely pay for it out of the pool of revenues it earned from its contract with the employer...

Nooooooo, in reality Bishops, that means the insurance company will be paying for it with what wo...uld otherwise be CORPORATE PROFITS, Dividends to shareholders, salary and bonuses to high level management, maybe even...*shudder* would have paid toward an abortion instead of the "pill". The sheer short sighted nature of some, is a never ending source of bewilderment.

 
932Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Sun, Feb 12, 2012, 12:53
You have to remember, though, that many Catholic diocese are self-insured. Which means the Church is both the "employer" and the "insurance company." With that in mind you can see that the distinction between who pays is moot.

Of course, this is all crazy anyway. There are some religious who oppose blood transfusions but whose premiums are clearly covering transfusions by others. Etc etc. At some point the USCB are going to find themselves on the outside of this.
 
933sarge33rd
      ID: 4717718
      Sun, Feb 12, 2012, 13:04
I believe you are right, in holding that the Bishops will find themselves on the 'wrong' side of this fight, ultimately. But at what cost until then?
 
934Wilmer McLean
      ID: 2899151
      Fri, Feb 17, 2012, 05:52
RE: 930

Honestly, I would support a policy of longer and healthier lives despite the demonstration of government net costs. I can't think of any better way for a government to spend tax dollars, in fact. But I'm still reading about preventative care costs vs saving health care costs down the line. The best I'm hearing is "it depends on the care" which isn't really helping me at this point.

U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF)

The AHRQ Prevention and Care Management Portfolio fulfills AHRQ's Congressionally mandated role to support the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). The USPSTF is an independent panel of non-Federal experts in prevention and evidence-based medicine and is composed of primary care providers (such as internists, pediatricians, family physicians, gynecologists/obstetricians, nurses, and health behavior specialists).

The USPSTF conducts scientific evidence reviews of a broad range of clinical preventive health care services (such as screening, counseling, and preventive medications) and develops recommendations for primary care clinicians and health systems. These recommendations are published in the form of "Recommendation Statements."

AHRQ's Prevention and Care Management Portfolio provides ongoing administrative, research, technical, and dissemination support to the USPSTF.

...


U.S. Preventive Services Task Force - Recommendations

Check the links on this page.

The USPSTF was convened to rigorously evaluate clinical research in order to assess the merits of preventive measures, including screening tests, counseling, immunizations, and preventive medications. The topics in these lists include all recommendations: active, inactive, and in progress.

e.g. :

Screening for Breast Cancer - �The USPSTF recommends against teaching breast self-examination (BSE).

-------------------------------------------------

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force rates preventive care one a scale of A to D.

A) Are these ratings mandatory for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA)?

B) Will these ratings be ruled by science or politics?

C) Do these ratings mean patients will pay more out of pocket at times?
 
935biliruben
      ID: 34820210
      Fri, Feb 17, 2012, 06:22
Having worked on one of these task forces, I don't think you have much to worry about in terms of politics.

Unfortunately, these recommendations are sometimes based on little more than consensus opinion (sometimes the previously demonized Delphi panels), because the research simply hasn't been done yet to provide an evidence base.

The institutes are slashing funding for the research that needs to be done to fill in these gaps in knowledge right now, so it will get worse before it gets better.
 
936Boldwin
      ID: 49030519
      Fri, Feb 17, 2012, 11:36
Fascinating post, bili, care to expand on it?
 
937Wilmer McLean
      ID: 2899151
      Sat, Feb 18, 2012, 06:56
The bleeding edge of rationing -- Obama's health plan and the new power of the United States Preventive Services Task Force -- Scott Gottlieb | American Enterprise Institute -- November 03, 2011

Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), a previously obscure government advisory body has acquired vast authority to decide which health care services Americans will have access to. The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) was created in 1984 as a government advisor with the mission of assessing the clinical utility of preventive health measures such as screening tests and issuing nonbinding recommendations about which measures doctors should incorporate into routine medical care. PPACA gives the USPSTF�s recommendations the force of law, making them de facto mandates on which preventive services private health plans and public programs such as Medicare must pay for. Services that do not make the USPSTF grade are unlikely to be covered at all. The USPSTF was not designed to wield this kind of sweeping and binding authority. It does not maintain the transparency, deliberative process, appeal process, or requirements for public notice and comment that are hallmarks of sound regulatory policymaking. Moreover, because the USPSTF has few guidelines governing its function, it has great flexibility to adapt its criteria and grow its mandate in ways that may conflict with political goals and public sentiment and lead to unintended consequences.
...

Conclusion

The USPSTF has evolved from an expert commission to an advisory body to an independent body with all of the authority of a regulatory agency. Along the way, it has developed few of the characteristics shared by regulatory bodies. While the USPSTF has taken steps to bring more structure and transparency to its process in recent years, it still does not meet the expectations placed on sister agencies that discharge similar regulatory power. Historically, the USPSTF saw its purpose as providing users with information about the extent to which its recommendations are supported by evidence, allowing them to make more informed decisions about implementation. Now its recommendations will have regulatory force that will effectively bind clinicians by determining what their patients can be reimbursed for.

At the very least (given its expansive new authority) Congress should view the USPSTF as the regulatory authority that it has become and, in turn, subject the body to the APA. Or less appropriately, Congress could view USPSTF as an advisory committee to the government and subject the body to FACA. But given its expanding mandate, how can the USPSTF continue to be treated as a body that is neither advisory or regulatory, and exempted from all of the customary rules that govern other federal entities?

Under PPACA, a body that was once empowered only to make preventive health recommendations now has been delegated authority to create coverage requirements for private health plans. To those who feared that considerations of cost and the determinations of centralized processes could drive decision making under PPACA, the USPSTF may become a visible manifestation of these concerns. Proponents of this sort of centralized decision making may have done their policy prerogatives significant harm by allowing a group with so little procedural rigor to represent the leading edge of these kinds of prescriptions.


Seems like this brought-to-light USPSTF needs:

A) More congressional oversight

B) Greater transparency
 
938Boldwin
      ID: 49030519
      Sat, Feb 18, 2012, 11:19
We've gone from preventative services meaning what steps we take to prevent future sickness...

...to preventative services meaning what medical services the government will prevent you from getting.
 
939sarge33rd
      ID: 4717718
      Sat, Mar 17, 2012, 14:34
Private health insurance is HIGHLY inefficent

T.R. Reid, a former overseas bureau chief with The Washington Post toured the world's health care systems for his recent book, The Healing of America. Reid says:

"That seems sensible, right? The private sector can do things more efficiently? It doesn't work in health care. The least efficient payers in the world are the American private insurance companies. They have administrative costs of 20 to 30%. That's a 30% tax on every dollar you spend on health care. Britain is totally socialized medicine [and its] administrative costs [are] 5%. Canada is private doctors and public payers - 6% administrative costs. So it turns out, for some reason in health care, governments are doing this more efficiently than our private sector."


The proof folks, is in the pudding. Our private insurance modelm spends SIX TIMES as much on admin, as the European government run models. How much additional care, would those extra dollars provide?

Of course, money is meaningless when we get better care right?

Dr. Clair Gerada, the chair of Britain's Royal College of General Practitioners says:

"Nobody pays a doctor�s bill with the NHS. People will go their entire life without paying a single upfront cost. Our health service is fair. It means that irrespective of what you afford, irrespective of your illness, you will be able to access health care."

Compare that to the U.S., where an estimated 137,000 people died over seven years because they were uninsured. Of course, the Brits do pay for their health care in another way - with taxes. their sales tax is a whopping 20% and income taxes are as high as 50%.


So why are we letting 20,000 Americans every year DIE, for reasons of profit? We are morally bankrupt, all in pursuit of on extra per centage point ROI for that quarterly report.
 
940Boldwin
      ID: 12214143
      Sat, Mar 17, 2012, 16:49
My dad would have died in agony three separate times in the last 40 days if he had had to wait in line to see a doctor in the style of Canada or Britain.

But letting them die is an efficient way of cutting costs. Not enuff of a savings to make up for government inefficiency but it helps to cover part of the cost.
 
941Canadian Hack
      ID: 164132618
      Sat, Mar 17, 2012, 17:11
Boldwin

I don't know enough specifics of your situation to properly debunk that line, but I am almost certain the statement says more about your lack of knowledge of the health care system in Canada or Britain and your love of creating self-serving hyperbole which is not reality based.

Why should anyone believe your claim?

 
942Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Sat, Mar 17, 2012, 17:43
Waiting times for emergencies are about the same. Waiting times for non-emergencies, can indeed, stretch out.

Would you rather pay 1/4 the amount of money and have to deal with stretched out non-emergency wait times? I probably would have no problem with it.
 
943sarge33rd
      ID: 4717718
      Sat, Mar 17, 2012, 18:11
More Americans travel to Canada for health care, at MUCH lower rates; than Canbadiens travel to the US. What does that say?

My FB post on this tsopic, wghere several of us are having a discussion on healthcare:

Why the free market fails, for delivery of health care.

How many hospitals, are there within 50 miles of where you live? Unless you live in rural America, odds are high that there are 3 or more. Now, how many of you know which one will stitch a serious wound, for the least amount of money? How many of you care, when your 7 yr old needs a dz stitches? How many of you have ever "shopped" your localized health care providers for their rates? None, right?

That is why the free market is an utter failure, in providing health care. The free market, is premised on competition being actively present, so as to exert pressures on pricing to keep those prices down. There is no competition for delivery of health care however. Consumers, when they need stitches, dont shop around. They go to the NEAREST facility. When the consumer needs a tooth pulled, they dont ask much, they ask how soon can you get me in? There is no competition or competitive pressure on pricing. It isnt like a TV set, where the consumer can and will take 6 months to research the purchase and pricing before actually executing. No, when you need stitches, you need them NOW, not in 6 months. The absolute immediacy of the need precludes price shopping/comparisons and THAT, precludes the free market from working properly.
 
944sarge33rd
      ID: 4717718
      Sat, Mar 17, 2012, 18:18
Debunking several myths surrounding Canadian healthcare

As a Canadian living in the United States for the past 17 years, I am frequently asked by Americans and Canadians alike to declare one health care system as the better one.

Often I'll avoid answering, regardless of the questioner's nationality. To choose one or the other system usually translates into a heated discussion of each one's merits, pitfalls, and an intense recitation of commonly cited statistical comparisons of the two systems.

Because if the only way we compared the two systems was with statistics, there is a clear victor. It is becoming increasingly more difficult to dispute the fact that Canada spends less money on health care to get better outcomes.

 
945sarge33rd
      ID: 4717718
      Sat, Mar 17, 2012, 18:33
Palin admits to travelling to Canada for health care

PALIN: We used to hustle over the border for health care we received in Canada. And I think now, isn�t that ironic?
 
946Boldwin
      ID: 12214143
      Sun, Mar 18, 2012, 11:56
People die on waiting lists while dieing from cancer all the time in Canada and Britain so don't tell me my dad would have gotten treated in a timely fashion. If cancer isn't a time sensitive emergency...

Right now they found a bowel obstruction in my dad. He's 85. Obama would have told him, "Stomach discomfort? Take two aspirin and get in line, at 85 you got no QALY's left anyway".
 
947Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Sun, Mar 18, 2012, 12:38
Nonsense. It has to be said. You have no idea what "Obama" would have said.

What happens to your father is entirely in the hands of whatever health insurance you have for him.

Which, of course, is the problem. But when you fight like a hyena to ensure that private insurance companies hold sole control over people's health care "choices" you shouldn't be surprised that you are paying 8 times what others are and have lowered life expectancy, increased infant mortality, and high abortion rates.
 
948Tree
      ID: 17039238
      Sun, Mar 18, 2012, 13:02
People die on waiting lists while dieing from cancer all the time in Canada and Britain so don't tell me my dad would have gotten treated in a timely fashion.

do you know anyone personally?

my brother - a landed immigrant in Canada, his wife (a Canadian citizen), her parents (Americans who became Canadian citizens in the 70s), her sister (Canadian citizen), and many of their friends (several different immigration statuses), all are eligible under the Canadian health care system.

NONE of had problems for any treatment, be it serious illness or injury, or even cosmetic procedures such as LASIK.

yes, i am sure there are horror stories - no healthcare system is perfect.

but your misinformation and ignorance are what will cost lives.
 
949Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Sun, Mar 18, 2012, 13:30
It is the essence of fear mongering to say that people will die because of having to wait for an operation.

People die from getting vaccinated, but we do it because it increases our chances of a long and healthy life (and, as a bonus, saves us money).

Sometimes American individualism gets in the way of actual American individualism living longer lives. The proof's in the pudding: Tens of thousands of people dead because of a system which puts for-profit companies in charge of who lives and who dies.
 
950Frick
      ID: 52182321
      Sun, Mar 18, 2012, 13:31
At 85 who is the insurance provider for your dad?
 
951Boldwin
      ID: 12214143
      Sun, Mar 18, 2012, 13:54
He has insurance to die for, great insurance provided by Northern Illinois Gas. Never had a payment issue. I don't know the name of the company because it's never been an issue.
 
952sarge33rd
      ID: 4717718
      Sun, Mar 18, 2012, 14:02
People do not die in Canada waiting on treatment. THAT, is a phoney ass GOP fear mongering talking point w/o basis in fact. What IS fact, is that people in THIS country of ours, die all the gddmn time, because they dont have insurance.
 
953Boldwin
      ID: 12214143
      Sun, Mar 18, 2012, 14:04
The Fraser Institute, a Canadian think tank, calculated in 2003 the average Canadian waited more than four months for treatment by a specialist once the referral was made by a general practitioner. According to the Fraser Institute's work, the shortest median wait was 6.1 weeks for oncology (cancer) treatment without radiation. In some provinces, neurosurgery patients waited more than a year. A simple MRI requires, on average, a three-month wait in Canada.

10,000 breast cancer patients who had to wait an average of eight weeks for post-operative radiation treatments over the past seven years have brought a class action suit against Quebec's hospitals.
Have fun with that bowel obstruction for three months while you wait for the MRI.
 
954sarge33rd
      ID: 4717718
      Sun, Mar 18, 2012, 14:12
Should I post about every wrong limb amputation in this country> Or every patient killed in the O.R., when they were given a med their records clearly said they were allergic to?

EVERY possible system will have issues of one sort or another. But our countries overall 'score' on healthcare delivery, is abhorrent. Made even worse, when one consider that on avg we pay 3 times as much as any other indstrialized country on a per capita basis FOR that health care.
 
955Tree
      ID: 17039238
      Sun, Mar 18, 2012, 14:23
The Fraser Institute, a Canadian think tank, calculated in 2003 the average Canadian waited more than four months for treatment by a specialist once the referral was made by a general practitioner.

well, hooray for the Fraser Institute, their misinformation, and your lies and propaganda.

in reality, more than 86 percent of Canadians waited less than three months.

most of those, waited less than a month to a see a specialist.

considering that just two days ago i was told i would be able to get an appointment with my primary care physician on July 16, i'll take that Canadian waiting period.
 
956Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Sun, Mar 18, 2012, 14:45
Ah--citing old statistics when current ones will do just fine. A good sign.

Non-emergency waiting times are similar to the United States (in fact, a tad quicker, once you get to the facility).

Boldwin seems to want to mix up wait times for emergency and non-emergency medical wait times because, well, I don't know why. I only know that it undercuts his argument fatally.
 
957DWetzel
      ID: 31111810
      Sun, Mar 18, 2012, 17:27
Boldwin seems to want to mix up wait times for emergency and non-emergency medical wait times because, well, I don't know why.

link
 
958Boldwin
      ID: 12214143
      Sun, Mar 18, 2012, 17:30
I commend you all for your equanimity.

When I get diagnosed with cancer I on the other hand will consider it an emergency and waiting to see a doctor about it for a couple months just isn't gonna cut it. No thank you.
 
959sarge33rd
      ID: 4717718
      Sun, Mar 18, 2012, 18:33
A diagnosis of "cancer", is no automatically a matter of emergency life-v-death options. There are FAR more elements entering into it, than just that overly simplistic view.

I know people who have told me of blood in their stools for 2+ years, yet they dont get a colonoscopy. Why? They dont have the 3k for the procedure and if they did, they dont have the money for treatment even if it WERE cancer. Courtesy of our nataions healthcare system, no insurance+cancer=you die.
 
960Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Sun, Mar 18, 2012, 19:12
Depends on the kind of cancer as well.

I, for one, am unwilling to pay a *lot* more money so that someone without an emergency doesn't have to wait long when it comes their time to get health care.
 
961Frick
      ID: 14082314
      Mon, Mar 19, 2012, 09:28
America's Healthcare

We pay a lot, but we get arguably the same level of treatment at other countries.

I'm glad your grandfather has excellent insurance, but he is also in the minority of retired workers who have insurance from their prior employer. And very, very few jobs today offer that type of retirement benefit. Even some of the people who have retirement insurance are losing it as the companies who offered it are going under due the increasing costs of it.

Do you have the link to the radiation case? Typically radiation doesn't start immediately because the tissue needs time to recoup from the surgery before radiation can start. At least that was my wife's experience.
 
962boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Mon, Mar 19, 2012, 11:02
There is on part of the equation missing here and that is America has to foot the bill for everyone else's medication. We pay extra so other countries don't.

Secondly we just spend more money, I have see small ERs with the kind of technology that ERs in europe have only read about in books. The point is when there is demand for the latest in technology even when it may only give marginally better results over cheaper alternatives you are going to have higher costs. Someone has to pay to have the best.

This also explains post on why people do not shop around based on price and that is because price doesn't matter people shop around based on perceived outcome a 1% better perceived outcome is way more than 1% cost increase.
 
963Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Mon, Mar 19, 2012, 11:08
The drug cost is certainly worth taking another look at. It should be said that taxpayers have already paid for the cost of new medicines (which are written off as business expenses). Drug costs to patients (or their insurance companies), like other health care costs, bear little relation to the actual cost of the medicine however.

I agree completely with your second paragraph.

As for shopping around, the truth is that many places don't have prices in place for which a consumer can even price shop. One of the big drawbacks in taking cost out of the hands of the consumers is that health care charges are no longer a factor. No wonder the prices keep going up.
 
964boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Mon, Mar 19, 2012, 11:29
Yes making the drug is cheap researching the drug, designing the process the manufacture it no so much.

As for shopping around based on cost the other consideration is given a customer is insured what is his incentive to shop around, he is not paying for it or at least many times in their mind they are not. This means that in reality who is the the hospitals actual customer? Is it the patient and/or the insurance company? It might be easier to look at like you do a vet, your pet is the patient but you are paying the bill. Do you think that it is possible that you and your pet agree on the treatment it is getting? The point is that the health care system whether it is the insurance company or single payer system paying the bill it leads to conflicts in interest making an even complicated system even more complicated.

 
965Frick
      ID: 14082314
      Mon, Mar 19, 2012, 11:47
Boikin, were you referring to other countries with regards to medications? Don't most other countries set caps on medication prices so the net effect is that US purchases pay much more the the R&D costs then buyers in other countries.
 
966boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Mon, Mar 19, 2012, 14:09
Exactly, the US supplements the costs of drugs in other countries.
 
967sarge33rd
      ID: 4717718
      Mon, Mar 19, 2012, 14:14
Pharma charges the US consumer more, for one reason and one reason only...because they can.
 
968boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Mon, Mar 19, 2012, 14:31
well of course that is how economics works, you charge as much as market can handle, and if that is not enough to cover costs otherwise you quit selling it.

Sarge would you rather they just quit selling it? Or quick looking for new medications?
 
969sarge33rd
      ID: 4717718
      Mon, Mar 19, 2012, 15:39
No boikin, you are misunderstanding what I am sayiong. They dont charge "what the market will bear", which is free markets in operation. They charge whatever they want to, because their customers have 2 choices...pay up, or face possible death, depending on the nature of the med. Big Pharma, holds the American consumer hostage...period.
 
970Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Mon, Mar 19, 2012, 15:45
Exactly, the US supplements the costs of drugs in other countries.

Only in the sense that the US supplemented the cost before the first pill is sold. Not in the sense that you mean it (as in, our high drug prices allow US drug companies to sell drugs overseas under cost).

US drug companies made money on virtually every drug they sell. But in the US, they made a *lot* of money on each one they sell.
 
971boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Mon, Mar 19, 2012, 16:32
Only in the sense that the US supplemented the cost before the first pill is sold. Not in the sense that you mean it (as in, our high drug prices allow US drug companies to sell drugs overseas under cost

No I meant want I said if the US did not allow for drug companies to make "excessive" money of new drugs they would never fund the research for new drugs.

You are both making a logical fallacy, you are assuming the drug would be made regardless. you are assuming the wrong choice, it is not die or pay up it is (die) or (have choice of paying or dieing).
 
972DWetzel
      ID: 49962710
      Mon, Mar 19, 2012, 17:17
Except "paying or dying" really isn't a choice.

I mean, in the olden days when the robbers came and said "your money or your life", there weren't exactly people sitting there pondering "oh, gosh, that's a tough call".
 
973Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Mon, Mar 19, 2012, 17:24
#971: I'm afraid I'm not understanding your argument. The United States only funds research in the sense that the cost of research, as a business expense, is taken off the company's taxes.
 
974Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Mon, Mar 19, 2012, 18:26
Re 961: Going forward, the number of non-elderly getting employee-based health care insurance is dropping, by a lot.
 
975sarge33rd
      ID: 4717718
      Mon, Mar 19, 2012, 19:25
that is due, in no small part I'm sure, to all the union busting being done by the GOP across the country.

I for one find it rather telling, that Sarah Palin was lamenting how her family paid out of pocket for healthcare, OR travelled across the Canadian-Alaskan border into Canada, until she and Todd "both got good union jobs", (her words to a Vancouver audience).
 
976Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Mon, Mar 19, 2012, 21:19
The fiscal conservative's case for birth control coverage.
 
977Frick
      ID: 52182321
      Mon, Mar 19, 2012, 22:11
In a grossly over simplified example, let's say that Big Pharma X has a chemist who develops a new drug. He and his team have spent 10 years doing research and another 10 doing clinical trials. The total cost of that research is $1B. The cost of manufacturing the pill is $1/pill. Big Pharma X will sell the pill for the maximum allowed under the laws of various countries around the world. Let's say that is $5/pill. Big Pharma X calculates that it will sell 100 million pills around the world before their patent runs out. 25% of the pills will be in the US. I apologize for the math word problem, but bear with me. Big Pharma X will realize sales of $375M for their pills around the world outside of the US. For the 25M pills they are going to sell in the US they need to sell the pills for $25 each do break even on their research costs.

Once the patent runs out the pills be $2 and the generic versions will be $1.2.

Is Big Pharma X a greedy company?


 
978sarge33rd
      ID: 4717718
      Mon, Mar 19, 2012, 22:27
all depends on how close to accurate your projected numbers are, on that size investment. Viagra for ex, sold WAY over 100 million pills in the first 5 years alone, that it was on the market. Selling it at the initial $15/pill, was excessive..yes.
 
979sarge33rd
      ID: 4717718
      Mon, Mar 19, 2012, 22:37
Friend of mine has been on NEXIUM for 9 years now. Started out $30/m and now it is $200. Patent runs out next year and the price jumped this year. THAT, is greedy, gouging before the ability to keep the captive audience is lost.
 
980Frick
      ID: 52182321
      Mon, Mar 19, 2012, 22:44
Are they gouging or did they incorrectly estimate how many pills they would sell, thus did not charge enough on the prior pills to cover their investment.

Both are probably true in various cases.

And my example had no basis in reality, but was only meant to explain the claim that American's pay more for prescription drugs. I made up the numbers to keep the math simple and illustrate the point, not try and replicate reality.
 
981biliruben
      ID: 59551120
      Mon, Mar 19, 2012, 23:04
Pharma profit margins are continuously onw of the largest of any industry. They swipe government-supported research, then take home billions. It's a scam. And I want a taste!
 
982sarge33rd
      ID: 4717718
      Tue, Mar 20, 2012, 00:33
When the cost of the scrip jumps HUGE, in the year before it can go generic; there isnt any miscalculation to it. If there had been, they'd have known that at LEAST 2 years prior. It's gouging, plain and simple.
 
983Razor
      ID: 551031157
      Tue, Mar 20, 2012, 10:14
Re:980 - Nexium was a mature product. No business would suddenly realize after nearly two decades of selling a product that they have, oops, made a mistake and mispriced it by over 600%.
 
984Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Tue, Mar 20, 2012, 12:42
Exactly. I used to see this all the time when I was working in a pharmacy. In fact, we'd often give a heads up to docs when a drug was going to go off patent so they were aware of the sudden price increases for some of their patients.

A lot of those (elderly patients, in particular) would space out their medication or drop it entirely for a bit in the hopes of waiting out the time when the generic would hit the market. We'd see it all the time.
 
985boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Tue, Mar 20, 2012, 15:50
This is not to defend the practice but if you look at the actual numbers increase in price is more around 5-20% not 600%
 
986Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Tue, Mar 20, 2012, 16:11
The fact is, there are lots of pressures on pricing which hides their actual costs. Nevertheless, the makers of Nexium made $2 billion on that drug in 2010.
 
987boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Tue, Mar 20, 2012, 16:52
Nexium's patent doesn't even expire till 2015 I am not sure what it has to do with this discussion unless you are talking about drugs being over prescribed.
 
988boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Tue, Mar 20, 2012, 16:56
Secondly there are cheaper alternatives to Nexium already. This just more evidence for my point I have already made people do not look at health care cost analytically minor perceived benefits out way large pricing differences.
 
989Razor
      ID: 551031157
      Tue, Mar 20, 2012, 17:20
Well, there are many reasons for that, boikin. Physicians are influenced to prescribe certain medications or treatments by a variety of sources, pharma and insurance companies most prominently. The acceptance of the extreme influence of these industries into our health care, at the expense of trillions of dollars in taxpayer, corporate and government wealth, is mind boggling.
 
990sarge33rd
      ID: 4717718
      Tue, Mar 20, 2012, 18:54
When the Dr writes the scrip FOR "Nexium" and you ask about an alternative and the Doc says "no"...you get the Nexium. Shopping and/or comparisons, have nothing to do with it.
 
991Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Tue, Mar 20, 2012, 19:28
boikin: I think you overstate the ability of those who want to price shop with the actual information to do so.

Here's the bottom line: We pay a *lot* more for our health care than other countries. And it is not reflecting a longer lifespan, fewer sick days, or lower infant mortality. So what do all those extra dollars cover? And it is worth it?
 
992sarge33rd
      ID: 4717718
      Tue, Mar 20, 2012, 19:31
not only dio we not see longer life spans, we see a shorter one. Lifestyle, eating habits, exercise etc etc all enter into that; but the fact remains that we spend 2-4 times per person more than most other "industrialized" countries, and have a shorter life expectancy. So what ARE we getting for those dollars? (other than ROI for shareholders)
 
993Frick
      ID: 52182321
      Tue, Mar 20, 2012, 19:58
Nexium's original patent already expired, they waited until the patent was ready to expire and then claimed that the mirror image of the molecule was unique and did a better job treating the issue while patenting the mirror image to extend the patent. This practice is dubious at best.

As far as the massive profits, they are on the higher side, as an industry, but not an outlier. link Considering the amount of risk they assume when developing and testing new drugs the returns appear reasonable.

As boikin said, our current system is based strictly on outcome, not cost. When my wife was undergoing treatment for breast cancer we never factored in the costs of the treatments. This is both good and bad. Good because it didn't affect our treatment decisions, but bad in that we never thought about other alternative locations to receive treatment from. In fact it was mildly uncomfortable to tell the first surgeon who was connected to the hospital that made the initial diagnosis that we were going with a specialized surgeon at another hospital. Again, cost was never a factor, only the perceived outcome.

I'm not arguing that cost needs to be a driving factor, but it should be a factor. My employer has been pushing 90 day refills as it is much cheaper for them, but my wife typically doesn't because the cost to us is approximately the same, but more of a pain to do.

 
994boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Wed, Mar 21, 2012, 10:27
When the Dr writes the scrip FOR "Nexium" and you ask about an alternative and the Doc says "no"...you get the Nexium. Shopping and/or comparisons, have nothing to do with it.

that is not true at all, I have asked my doctor for changes in prescriptions many times. And if you Doctor doesn't you should change doctors.
 
995Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Wed, Mar 21, 2012, 12:06
It probably isn't wise to go against a doctor's wishes that a script be DAW.
 
996boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Wed, Mar 21, 2012, 12:54
sometimes it wise too, at least question what the alternatives are and what the risks and benefits are. Blindly taking something just cause they are doctor is not a good idea, people do make mistakes.
 
997sarge33rd
      ID: 4717718
      Wed, Mar 21, 2012, 13:14
re 994...some patients boikin, have conditions and circumstances which do not allow for generics. good gawd man, just because YOU are/were able to change one oce or twice or thrice, does not mean everyone can or that you ALWAYS can.
 
998Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Wed, Mar 21, 2012, 13:24
#996: I didn't say what you are accusing me of saying. You say if a doctor insists upon a DAW script you would change doctors. I said that is not wise.

This issue is tough enough without things being read into a post.
 
999Frick
      ID: 14082314
      Wed, Mar 21, 2012, 13:54
Sarge, are you arguing that the name brand medicine is better in some way? Or that a generic medication wouldn't be covered by an insurance company?

 
1000boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Wed, Mar 21, 2012, 15:01
re 998: ok i think wires were crossed, what I was saying is that if your doctor will not discuss prescription/treatment alternatives you should get a new doctor.

Are there cases where there are no alternatives, yes but assuming there are none is not a good idea.
 
1001sarge33rd
      ID: 4717718
      Wed, Mar 21, 2012, 16:32
999..I am saying that for some people, in some circumstances, the generic is not an option. I am neither a Dr nor a Pharmacist so I can not and will not pretend, to be able to address the "why" behind it. I simply know of folks who have been told by one, the other, or sometimes both...that the generic wasnt an option for them. Medical reasons? Insurance? I dont know.
 
1002DWetzel
      ID: 49962710
      Wed, Mar 21, 2012, 17:19
This seems like a useful exposition on the subject.

link

(links to scientific studies therein, for those who care to read)
 
1003Razor
      ID: 551031157
      Wed, Mar 21, 2012, 17:22
Re: boikin - physicians are highly trained individuals paid very well to make informed decisions on their patients' health care. A patient should be involved in their health care, but by no means is it realistic to expect patients to question physicians' recommendations at every turn. The goal should be to allow physicians the ability to practice medicine without outside forces influencing their decision. A patient being active in his/her health care is good, but certainly not a solution to the rampant waste in prescribing drugs or treatments.
 
1004Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Wed, Mar 21, 2012, 17:31
Exactly. Though I would add that the best person to give advice on drugs is a pharmacist. Still, one shouldn't self-medicate.
 
1005boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Wed, Mar 21, 2012, 19:51
You must have miss read what I said, all I said was that you should changed doctors if they do not let you question the medications/treatments you are getting.

I am not advocating questioning everything or self-medicating,or even that is cure to high prices. But I will ask you this the last time you saw the doctor how long was if for? Probably no more than 15 minutes, you think it unexceptionable to take an extra five minutes to ask a few questions.
 
1006Frick
      ID: 52182321
      Wed, Mar 21, 2012, 20:48
My wife and I went to visit a doctor once and walked away know that he would never operate on my wife. He came across as a pompous ass and when we asked questions his answers came across as "why are you asking, I already told you everything you need to know." I think it was just his personality, but it really turned us off.

And while there has been massive reform, doctors are influenced by outside forces.
 
1007sarge33rd
      ID: 4717718
      Wed, Mar 21, 2012, 22:36
1004....in the example I gave, which elicited your response to walk away if they dont let you question them...the Doctor WAS questioned about an alternative drug to Nexium and the answer to the question was no. You totally misread what *I* was saying. When the Dr answers your question in the negative, that is not automatically a chastisement for dsaring to ask. (Though there most certainly are more than a few Doctors with 'God" complexes.)
 
1008Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Thu, Mar 22, 2012, 00:41
Probably worth noting, in a thread about Healthcare Debates, that the Affordable Care Act will be argued in from of SCOTUS on Tuesday.

We can already predict that some (Thomas & Scalia) are against it for political reasons. But many other observers are predicting safe passage for the Act. Including an ABA survey which puts odds of it passing muster with SCOTUS at about 85%.

The decision itself might take some months to come about--it'll be interesting to see what the political fallout is once it does.
 
1009Boldwin
      ID: 12214143
      Thu, Mar 22, 2012, 01:34
it'll be interesting to see what the political fallout is once it does.

Romney shaking his 'etch-a-sketch'.

 
1010sarge33rd
      ID: 4717718
      Tue, Mar 27, 2012, 17:29
OK, talking head lawyers on the news, are indicating a belief that SCOTUS will vote 5-4 to oveerturn the mandate. Do that, and you basically have to overturn the whole thing, since w/o the mandate you then lose the economic engne that pays for the rest of it.

Now, apparently, the individual mandate here is problematic because IT IS NOT A TAX. So, the GOP, in its current mode of "all or nothing" is potentially setting the stage ofr them to get/have "nothing". IF, the DEMS retake the hosue in 2012 (far from unlikely) and if they grow to a Super Maj in the Senate..they simply rewrute it to what they wanted in the first place...single payer, govt provided health care. Premiums collected, via a payroll tax. Boom! Exactly what the Reps do NOT want.
 
1011Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Wed, Mar 28, 2012, 01:40
Lots of tea leaf reading after some of the oral arguments. I'm not buying it right now--and we are unlikely to get anything before June or July anyway.
 
1012Wilmer McLean
      ID: 2899151
      Wed, Mar 28, 2012, 05:34
 
1013Frick
      ID: 14082314
      Wed, Mar 28, 2012, 09:59
I don't think the Supreme Court will uphold the mandate simply for the fact that it will set a terrible precedent. Is there any other requirement mandated by the federal government to purchase something? Paying taxes is the closest example I can think of, but that isn't exactly purchasing something.

You are required to have car insurance, but only if you want to use public roads.

Can anyone name another example where individuals are required to purchase something by federal law?
 
1014Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Wed, Mar 28, 2012, 10:13
The government requires you to purchase all sorts of stuff if you do things (if you have kids you have to clothe them, feed them, etc). Government can require vaccination, as well. I think the point some are trying to make is whether purchasing insurance should be a requirement of citizenship.

The government could get around this, of course, by simply charging a tax to everyone equal to the amount of the penalty, then crediting that amount back should you prove you have insurance. No constitutional problem there.

The problem is that nearly everyone (something like 90%) want insurance to cover pre-existing conditions, to not be capped, to be there for them to jump in whenever they want. The problem is that universal participation makes possible all those things that they want the insurance to do. This is like suddenly wanting to get free vaccination when the symptoms start arising.
 
1015Boldwin
      ID: 12214143
      Wed, Mar 28, 2012, 10:51
I am most disturbed that we have a court where a near majority sit on their hands not even concerned about retaining a limited government.

I'll be looking for any evidence the statist half of the court cares at all for limits on government power.
 
1016boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Wed, Mar 28, 2012, 11:18
The government requires you to purchase all sorts of stuff if you do things (if you have kids you have to clothe them, feed them, etc). Government can require vaccination, as well.

vaccines are easy to opt out of and clothing/feeding children is like saying the government doesn't allow you to shoot your neighbor. Neither of which are accurate comparisons.
 
1017sarge33rd
      ID: 4717718
      Wed, Mar 28, 2012, 11:46
One of the Justices posed the question that it would be the ame as the Govt requiring you to buy broccolli.

No, it would not. We all buy food anyway. We dont all buy insurance. Those who buy hot dogs instead of broccolli, do not make the price of broccolli higher for those who buyu it. However with insurance, those who do not buy it, but use healthcare facilities, DO make the price of insurance higher for those who buy it.

THAT, is the argument the Govt should have come back with.
 
1018Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Wed, Mar 28, 2012, 11:56
#1016: The question was whether the government requires you to purchase things. The answer is "yes."

What those who are against Obamacare would like to argue is that the answer is "no" because the government shouldn't have the power to make you purchase [example]. This argument doesn't really work, since they have already ceded the point of the government's ability to require a purchase at all.

This is all a political smokescreen. There is no one out there who is saying, basically, that they would support Obamacare except for the fact that it is unconstitutional. The constitutional argument is being generated in order to overturn a law they don't like.
 
1019Boldwin
      ID: 12214143
      Wed, Mar 28, 2012, 12:10
It is not a smokescreen to say, "I do not support Obamacare because it is unconstitutional".

It can be as simple as the fact that providing healthcare is not one of government's enumerated powers in the constitution.
 
1020Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Wed, Mar 28, 2012, 12:38
No, it is a smokescreen to say "I don't like Obamacare so I'm going to make whatever argument I can to try to bring it down." The constitutional argument is a smokescreen.
 
1021Frick
      ID: 14082314
      Wed, Mar 28, 2012, 12:58
All of the examples that you list PD, are as a result of some other action, not simply being alive.

Charging a tax and then crediting it back if you have insurance is a bit trickier. Most taxes are are based on income, not a flat rate. It would amount to a highly regressive tax.

I think Obamacare is at least trying to reform health care, but the mandate requiring it seems wrong to me. People are allowed to make decisions about their lives. The mandate takes that decision from them.
 
1022Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Wed, Mar 28, 2012, 13:06
You can't reform health care in the way people say they want without the participation.

I tossed out the tax idea simply as a way to demonstrate that the same thing could be done without the Constitutional question of whether the penalty is a tax or not. So if the Right thinks that Obamacare will just disappear if the mandate is declared unconstitutional, they should celebrate very, very quickly.
 
1023sarge33rd
      ID: 4717718
      Wed, Mar 28, 2012, 13:32
yep. Declaring it uncoinstitutional as it stands now, is both partisan and erroneous IMHO. However, if that is what SCOTUS does, it may very well movce us directly into a single payer system ala Europe or Canada or some hybrid of the 2.
 
1024Frick
      ID: 14082314
      Wed, Mar 28, 2012, 14:03
Why do you think the mandate is constitutional? Because you support the mandate or because you think it is constitutional?

Your argument that it should be considered constitutional is that it won't work without the mandate. Why do you think that?
 
1025Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Wed, Mar 28, 2012, 14:10
I kinda went over this way, way back in this thread (#739 & 758, specifically). Simply put, I believe it is constitutional because I believe Congress has the power already.

Those arguing against it haven't specifically said why the law should be overturned, except to state, without demonstration, that the law "goes to far" and if it is not held to be unconstitutional then Congress will be free to do all sorts of other things they are not contemplating. I don't find those arguments to be very compelling.
 
1026Boldwin
      ID: 12214143
      Wed, Mar 28, 2012, 14:40
I think if PD and Sarge are so sure Obamacare will just be revamped with a tax and single payer instead of a mandate they had better celebrate very quickly before it dawns on them what the makeup of the House of Representatives is that would consider that.
 
1027Boldwin
      ID: 12214143
      Wed, Mar 28, 2012, 14:42
BTW Kagan is keeping a real low profile so her failure to recuse herself doesn't become an issue. If she doesn't need to recuse, no one ever did.
 
1028Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Wed, Mar 28, 2012, 14:46
I'm not so sure it will be revamped, mostly because I believe SCOTUS will uphold the constitutionality of the current law.

If she doesn't need to recuse, no one ever did.

Unlike Thomas, of course, whose wife is a paid lobbyist whose sole job is to overturn the law. I guess she's lucky Clarence Thomas doesn't need to even listen to the arguments to vote against it.
 
1029boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Wed, Mar 28, 2012, 15:00
Re 1025: I was looking back through the posts and found another problem Law and that is how can they argue interstate clause of the Constitution but at the same time the law creates intrastate insurance exchanges. If you are truely regulating interstate commerce would you not create interstate exchanges?
 
1030Boldwin
      ID: 12214143
      Wed, Mar 28, 2012, 15:01
A federal law, 28 USC 455, says a Supreme Court justice must recuse from �any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned� or anytime he has �expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy� while he �served in governmental employment.� - WesternJournalism.com
 
1031Boldwin
      ID: 12214143
      Wed, Mar 28, 2012, 15:03
Supreme Court Justice Thomas Clark made this observation in his majority opinion in the 1961 case Mapp v Ohio:

�Nothing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its own law, or worse, its disregard for the charter of its own existence.�
 
1032Boldwin
      ID: 12214143
      Wed, Mar 28, 2012, 15:05
"As Solicitor General it was Kagan�s sole responsibility to represent the Department of Justice and federal government in actions coming before the Supreme Court."

And they had a clue Obamacare was one of those actions.
 
1033Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Wed, Mar 28, 2012, 15:45
#1029: Because the insurance regulations are within each state. To break down those barriers would be needless--they can just work within the systems already in-place in each state.

The interstate nature of health care doesn't rely on the regulatory mechanism of the exchanges being state-based (just as jobless and food stamp benefits, which are administered by the states, can be regulated by Congress).
 
1034sarge33rd
      ID: 4717718
      Wed, Mar 28, 2012, 15:49
The mandate is constitutional, because healthcare is not a commodity like any other.

Have insurance or not, get hit by a car, and you get taken the hospital and treated. SOMEONE has to pay for that.

It is clearly interstate. People from FL, go to Rochester and the Mayo Clinic, all the time. People from Maine, go the Shriners, etc etc etc.

Dont buy insurance, and the cost OF insurance for those who do buy it, is higher than it otherwise would be. So the uninsured, alter the market by their decisions and foist the cost of their care off onto others. (the tax payers) Since it is tax dollars that provide the care, the Fed has the power to directly affect the spending of those tax dollars. (ie, the market)
 
1035Frick
      ID: 14082314
      Wed, Mar 28, 2012, 16:31
If I'm hit by a car, I would expect that the person to hit me have coverage and their insurance coverage would pay for my injuries. When the power and telecommunications companies were granted monopoly powers one of the caveats was they had to provide service to everyone. It did not say that everyone had to purchase the service. So by your argument everyone should have been required to purchase service or else they directly effecting the rates paid by others. In a more modern day example, everyone should be required to have a land line phone. The companies still provide service or the access to the service and by not having a land-line they are increasing the cost to those that do.

And not everyone who is injured or sick goes to a doctor or hospital.

I still don't think the mandate is constitutional, the main reason being it regulates that a person must purchase something. If it stopped at creating the exchanges or passed national laws that superceeded states laws regarding pre-existing conditions I think it would be constitutional.
 
1036Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Wed, Mar 28, 2012, 16:38
And not everyone who is injured or sick goes to a doctor or hospital

Right. Some of the die because they don't have insurance.

Look, see Wickard v. Filburn. SCOTUS found that the government had the power to regulate interstate commerce in that case. You might say: "Hey, what if the government required me to purchase broccoli--how can that be constitutional?" for which I can just reply: "Because SCOTUS already said that interstate commerce under Congress' purview includes even wheat grown by a farmer which is used solely by the farmer himself."
 
1037Razor
      ID: 551031157
      Wed, Mar 28, 2012, 16:42
Frick, you got 80% of the way there. The last 20% is that unlike utilities, people aren't necessarily virtually guaranteed to be in the market for the product later. The people who do not buy insurance are not people who do not want it. It's largely from people who will end up buying it later yet still enjoy the protection provided by the millennium old tradition of providing health care to those who are desperately in need of life saving care. No such requirement exists for any other product or service without some sort of price being attached to it.
 
1038Boldwin
      ID: 12214143
      Wed, Mar 28, 2012, 19:17
Or maybe they just wanna buy catastrophic coverage which is all a young person really needs.

But nope, that won't do. The real purpose of the mandate is to make some other guy's insurance cheaper by expanding the pool.

And I don't feel like being ordered to buy and eat brussel spouts or denied what I really wanna eat, and I don't wanna buy funeral insurance, and I don't wanna be told to walk the stairs, no elevator for you, and I don't wanna go around in body armor like the Michelin man to save the government a few bucks, or be made to buy orthotics, I want my wife wearing heels even if they hurt her feet and back, I don't want to have my competitive contact sports outlawed, or frankly I don't want the government's tentacles anywhere in my life they don't absolutely undeniably need to be.

And once anything you do effects the government's bottom line as it will if they takeover medicine, and once you let them into your private life making demands on what you do or don't buy, the tyranny will never end on it's own.
 
1039Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Wed, Mar 28, 2012, 19:25
The real purpose of the mandate is to make some other guy's insurance cheaper by expanding the pool

Why do your ethics end when discussing this issue? You lie and lie and lie as though there is no cost to your soul.
 
1040Boldwin
      ID: 12214143
      Wed, Mar 28, 2012, 20:11
The real purpose of the mandate is to make some other guy's insurance cheaper by expanding the pool...or they'd let the kid buy just the catastrophic coverage he needs.
 
1041Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Wed, Mar 28, 2012, 20:48
Here's the interesting thing about the SCOTUS argument: Obama wins. No matter what happens.

Remember that this whole ACA was a compromise. Obama took an idea that started in a right wing think tank, was first put into place by a Republican governor, and underwent lots and lots of market-based tweaks to insure that the health care insurance continued to be delivered by private insurance companies. If SCOTUS upholds it, Obama is vindicated. If SCOTUS tosses it, say hello to single payer.

Obama has no reason to try to work with the GOP on health care if they insist on taking their ball and going home. And here's the thing: the GOP has no Plan B. None. They lose here then they have nothing to offer regarding health care. And if they win they have no plan in place to do all those things the ACA was designed to correct that people say they want (as a kicker, the GOP gets to tell people that if they are under 55, the GOP plan is to continue to like health care dictated by insurance companies with little to no federal oversight.
 
1042Boldwin
      ID: 12214143
      Wed, Mar 28, 2012, 21:21
Never heard of Paul Ryan, have you?
 
1043Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Thu, Mar 29, 2012, 10:49
The last sentence of my post was specifically directed at the Ryan "plan" to save Medicare only for those 55 and older.

I think you should read a little more about the GOP ideas you reflexively leap to defend.
 
1044Frick
      ID: 14082314
      Thu, Mar 29, 2012, 11:22
I think you are correct on your assessment of the right PD. Maybe I'm in the minority of right leaning independents, but campaigning as simply anti-Obama/Left doesn't make me want to vote for you. I'm going to vote support someone with a better idea and at the moment that is Obama when it comes to health care. That being said, I don't like the requirement that everyone has to buy health care. Is it a good idea to have health coverage? Yes, but I don't think we should start writing laws to cover people's poor decisions. The ability to purchase major medical only is a very rational decision for some people, why are they being forced to purchase something that they don't need? If they want to purchase full coverage later after they find out they now have a pre-existing condition they should be able to buy coverage, but it isn't going to be the same price as someone who has had coverage the entire time and now finds out they have the same condition.
 
1045Boldwin
      ID: 12214143
      Tue, Apr 03, 2012, 10:51
Well the tenative results are in and Obama is sweating it after Kagan slipped him the results.

So now Obama makes the shameless intimidation threat, claims it would be unprecedented for the SCOTUS to overturn a law that was passed by a legislature.

What other kind of laws does he think they are limited to overturning? Cabinet department rulings?

Unprecedented in that it was passed by a majority? As if they've never overturned a law with a four vote exclusively partisan majority?

 
1046Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Tue, Apr 03, 2012, 11:04
Playing the judicial activism card should be familiar to you, Boldwin. I don't think you want to give that up just because Obama is using that as well.

In one clear sense Obama is right: In case after case after case, SCOTUS has granted wide latitude to Congress regarding the regulation of commerce. And so the Administration's argument is a good one, that Congress needs to know that Court decisions carry some weight going forward in order that the laws they make can be crafted in a way to take them under consideration. This case hinges upon whether the free reign the Court gave Congress in Wickard gets curbed to the extent that the conservatives on the bench want.
 
1047Boldwin
      ID: 12214143
      Tue, Apr 03, 2012, 11:20
Of course overturning an actually unconstitutional law is in no way judicial activism. Failing to do so would be.
 
1048Boldwin
      ID: 12214143
      Tue, Apr 03, 2012, 11:24
And of course the liberal packed Roosevelt court that delivered the tragically mistaken and unconstitutional commerce rulings which plague this country to this day, needs some trimming and limits placed on their overreach.
 
1049Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Tue, Apr 03, 2012, 11:29
But it isn't unconstitutional. That's the thing: Given the Supreme Court's previous rulings, this law is squarely in the constitutional realm of Congress. (see #739, which is hardly a liberal source).

So the tough question for the conservatives is: "How much precedent do we do away with in order to kill the mandate and make the law unconstitutional?"

It really is a tough question, since Congress could very easily have done the law (and can re-do it) in a way which clears much lower constitutional hurdles.

So how much Congressional reach on things conservatives love to reach for are they willing to prune? I don't know the answer to that. But I do know that this law isn't so clearly unconstitutional as the Right is hinging everything on.
 
1050Boldwin
      ID: 12214143
      Tue, Apr 03, 2012, 11:33
Eat your brocholi.

Or else. Ve ave hour veys of making you obey!
 
1051sarge33rd
      ID: 4717718
      Tue, Apr 03, 2012, 11:41
It is not unconstitutional. That is a simple matter of fact. That the right packed court may well overturn it anyway, is also fact.

The rights comparative to other markets, simply does not apply to medical care. One chooses which grocer to go to, but not which hospittal the ambulance takes them to after they get hit by a car. One chooses which dept store to shop, but when you need a tooth pulled, you dont ask the dentist 'how much', you ask them 'how soon' and the first one that can fit you in, is where you go. One chooses to buy hamburger or steak. Not to get cancer or need an abdominal surgery.

Medical care, is not a market of choice and thus the argument that it is open and subject to normal "free enterprise", is entirely invalid.
 
1052Boldwin
      ID: 12214143
      Tue, Apr 03, 2012, 11:45
Pardon me if I seek a second opinion.
 
1053sarge33rd
      ID: 4717718
      Tue, Apr 03, 2012, 11:58
you mean...pardon you while you scrounge for someone, anyone, who will agree with YOUR opinion.
 
1054Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Tue, Apr 03, 2012, 12:09
There are plenty of opinions on the right (Judge Silberman, Orin Kerr) who believe the mandate is constitutional. This should be no surprise, since the idea sprung from right wing think tanks.

It was only when this was actually put into action by a Democratic president that those same right wingers thought to make a strangely convoluted constitutional argument. And the fact that 4 of the Justices agree doesn't mean it is true--it means that the Court has become more politicized.
 
1055sarge33rd
      ID: 4717718
      Tue, Apr 03, 2012, 12:27
Just to try something new Boldwin, instead of something snarky like we both did in 1052/1053...why dont you try and tell me where my logic is wrong, in 1051?
 
1056Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Tue, Apr 03, 2012, 19:01
Fifth Circuit throws a temper tantrum over Obama remarks.
 
1057Boldwin
      ID: 12214143
      Tue, Apr 03, 2012, 20:21
Well deserved. Obama actually said it was unprecedented to overturn a law passed by a majority in a legislature.

At that point courts need to determine if the attorney the president sends before them even thinks the court has the authority to do the court's job.

A crazy thing for a president to say.

A crazy thing for a president who was once a constitution law professor.

Not so hard to believe coming from an anti-constitution 'progressive'.
 
1058Tree
      ID: 17039238
      Tue, Apr 03, 2012, 20:26
of course, Ronald Reagan never was critical of the courts and their decisions. oh, wait, he was. never mind.
 
1059Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Tue, Apr 03, 2012, 20:43
Its even crazier for what the fifth circuit did.

MR. SINGLETON: Mr. President, you said yesterday that it would be unprecedented for a Supreme Court to overturn laws passed by an elected Congress. But that is exactly what the Court has done during its entire existence. If the Court were to overturn individual mandate, what would you do, or propose to do, for the 30 million people who wouldn�t have health care after that ruling?



THE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all, let me be very specific. We have not seen a Court overturn a law that was passed by Congress on a economic issue, like health care, that I think most people would clearly consider commerce -- a law like that has not been overturned at least since Lochner. Right? So we�re going back to the �30s, pre New Deal.


That crazy President, citing facts like an ivory tower educated lamestream Soros clone.
 
1060Boldwin
      ID: 12214143
      Wed, Apr 04, 2012, 15:22
He wasn't talking to people familiar with 'Lochner'.

He was trying to convince the public that the SCOTUS was unprecedented and illegitimate if it overturned a massive 4 vote completely partisan majority of a legislature.

And he was threatening the SCOTUS with an ACORN-like attack if it dared cross him.
 
1061Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Wed, Apr 04, 2012, 16:37
Uh, no. On all three points. He expanded and clarified his remarks to demonstrate that. I know that this means today's right wing sh!tstorm about Obama is rendered moot at a result, but really--stop digging.
 
1062boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Wed, Apr 04, 2012, 17:03
I am curious where is there a link to what Obama said originally?
 
1063Khahan
      ID: 373143013
      Wed, Apr 04, 2012, 17:07
Absolutely not PD. If he wanted to convince the courts they would be going against 80 years of tradition he would have cited Lochner to them up front. He knew he his comments were for the masses and he knew had the 'power of the podium.' He made those comments very carefully and deliberately knowing full well who was listening and what their effects would be.


Here are 2 of his quotes on the matter:
�For years, what we�ve heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, there�s a good example, and I�m pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step,� Mr. Obama said.

and

�Ultimately, I�m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress,� he said during a joint news conference with Mexican President Felipe Calderon and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

He is a spin master. Nothing more. A completely partisan hack (editorial note - most politicians are) using his office as president of all Americans to push his ideology on the rest of us. He has a plan that narrowly was passed in the house and claims it was a strong majority?

I still give him credit for having a vision to fix what he and many see as a major social problem. But the method of fixing it unconstitutional. Again, to put it simply, the government is telling us as citizens, "buy this product or else get fined."

I cannot possibly fathom how any American citizen can accept that from its government. And if you think, "well we're making sure the sick are cared for" makes it alright, they are different issues. Completely different. Fixing one by violating the sanctity of the other is simply wrong.

Whats next? My kids get denied lunch because I packed it for them but my school, in the name of staying healthy and making sure we watch costs in our public health care says they can't eat it? Don't laugh. Its already happened, where else, but in Chicago.

Think long and hard, not about the issue you are trying to fix, but about the method you are using to fix it.
 
1064Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Wed, Apr 04, 2012, 17:10
Spinning. Hacking, etc. All true, I think. But this doesn't mean that his remarks (as expanded and clarified) aren't true. They were true. And the right wing daily meme machine can't handle it because the correction makes them appear (truthfully) unhinged.

But the method of fixing it unconstitutional.

Actually, it isn't. And to overturn it, conservatives on the Court are going to have to figure our how much precedent they want to overturn in order to do so.
 
1065Khahan
      ID: 54138190
      Wed, Apr 04, 2012, 17:51
And to overturn it, conservatives on the Court are going to have to figure our how much precedent they want to overturn in order to do so.


The precedent is easy - congress does not have to power to force American citizens to buy a product.

Thats it. Nothing more to it. Congress now has a simple, common sense and easily defined parameter to work within.

The interstate commerce clause gives congress the right to regulate commerce. But it should not ever be interpretted as giving congress or any part of government the right to force its citizenry into commerce.

Here's a question - what about faith healers who do not believe in western medicine, use of doctors etc. Are they forced against their truly religious belief to enter into this?

We're now violating another constitutional right.

Im not talking about some idiot who is going to suddenly have an epiphany and try to create a new religion. I'm talking about the tens of thousands of religious people who believe healing comes from a higher power and not thru our health system. What do you do with them?

What about independently wealthy people who can afford to and prefer to pay for their own medical bills if they arise?

What about people who just dont want to use specific kinds of health care services. Maybe with perfectly fine eyesight or that don't want to bother with a dentist. Do they have to pay for these parts of plans that they don't need and would never have otherwise used?

And you feel its alright for our government to tell these people - "Hey, we're making a change. By the way, if you don't go with the change we made and alter your lifestyle, we'll fine you."

That is exactly what this boils down to.

Now, take health care of it for a moment. People must buy a computer because it will help students learn more and the jobless find jobs more. Therefore we must all buy computers or face a fine.

If you reject the second one and not the first one how do you explain the difference? The reasoning behind the forced purchase is irrelevant (as far as whether or not regular citizens agree with it). Somebody in congress feels its a worthwhile endeavor and the ends justify the means. Do you truly want that carrot out there?
 
1066Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Wed, Apr 04, 2012, 18:03
But it should not ever be interpretted as giving congress or any part of government the right to force its citizenry into commerce.

Wickard vs Filburn. SCOTUS ruled that Congress has the exact right they you say they don't.

So the question returns to: How much of Wickard (and other cases) will SCOTUS overturn to get the ruling they want?
 
1067Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Wed, Apr 04, 2012, 18:04
As I've said before: Wickard was a horrible decision. But we can't pretend it didn't exist.
 
1068Khahan
      ID: 54138190
      Wed, Apr 04, 2012, 18:23
Wickard vs Filburn is not forcing anybody to buy a product. Its determining that excess product produced for personal consumption still has an effect on interstate commerce.

It is not a good parallel and it is not precedent as there are very distinctive differences.

The main thrust of the governments argument at the time was to, "was to stabilize the price of wheat on the national market". In this case we can easily insert health insurance for wheat.

But that alone does not make these the same cases. PD, you stated specifically that the court is going to have to determine how much precedent to turn over. The answer is none. Never before has congress declared citizens must purchase a product or face a fine. Never. Ever. Not once. Not even in Wickard. Wickard dealt with growth volume and market volume and the regulation of such. It also dealt with actions being taken and interpretted those actions as being involved in inter/intrastate commerce (the heart of the matter -the farmer felt his actions did not have to do with commerce, the state felt they did).

Our current health care debate deals with inaction affecting commerce. This has enough differences that it is a poor parallel and a case that needs to weigh on its own merits. And on its own merits, this is a gross overreach of congressional power.

I'm sorry but I cannot sit back and idly accept a government that tells me I must participate in something or be fined. It does not matter if it comes from congress, from the president or from SCOTUS.

And this absolutely should not be a conservative vs liberal discussion. Ever. Not ever when discussing something of such monumental proportions should partisanship be a part of the discussion. Unfortunately for it is. That in and of itself is a whole other issue and problem that needs resolved in this country.



 
1069Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Wed, Apr 04, 2012, 19:28
Wickard said that someone who decided not to enter into commerce was, in fact, acting as part of commerce anyway.

Your whole question hinges upon whether the lack of purchasing insurance is "commerce" that can be regulated by commerce. Wickard says "yes."
 
1070Tree
      ID: 55337419
      Wed, Apr 04, 2012, 20:40
Jerry Smith�s Obama rebuke questioned by legal experts


"I know and respect Judge Smith...But I am surprised to see a request to the Justice Department asking them to explain their views on judicial review," said the former dean of the University of Virginia School of Law John Jeffries, a former clerk to Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell. "My position would be that judicial review is judicial review, whether you like it or not."

Other scholars concurred. University of Chicago Professor Geoffrey Stone told Yahoo News in an email that Obama wasn't actually questioning judicial review, but was cautioning the judges to remember the other branches of government. "Judge Smith's response was, in my view, quite inappropriate," he said. "It was an unmistakably political act that was well beyond the proper bounds of the judicial role."

And Vanderbilt Law Professor Brian Fitzpatrick, a former clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia, told Talking Points Memo that though he doesn't think Obama's bellicose statements are particularly accurate, "the president is a politician. He's allowed to be cute. Federal judges are supposed to be above that."


 
1071Khahan
      ID: 54138190
      Thu, Apr 05, 2012, 00:06
I do agree Judge Smith's request was more a political act. But while federal judges are supposed to be 'above that' shouldn't we expect the same from the president?

At some point, somebody in the legislative branch is going to be playing politician. Congress will do just fine. I think we should also expect more from our president (and I do not think this just about Obama, same thought about Bush, Clinton, Bush etc). The president should be above that. Once elected he should disavow party affiliations lead the whole nation.
 
1072sarge33rd
      ID: 4717718
      Thu, Apr 05, 2012, 03:04
"The precedent is easy - congress does not have to power to force American citizens to buy a product."

Actually, they can. Previous SCOTUS ruling, required the farmer to buy grain instead of feeding the grain he grew, to his cattle.

The precedent, already exists and SCOTUS, set it. The mandate, is not unconstitutional. Though that fact may not stop a conservative SCOTUS majority, from ruling that a conservative plan (which has become unpopular with conservatyives because Obama likes it), unconstitutional.
 
1073Boldwin
      ID: 12214143
      Thu, Apr 05, 2012, 05:07
Every branch of the government should and does push back when either of the other two encroaches on their constitutional role and powers.
 
1074Khahan
      ID: 54138190
      Thu, Apr 05, 2012, 07:40
(which has become unpopular with conservatyives because Obama likes it)

Its not unpopular with conservatives because obama likes it. Its unpopular because its a horrible abuse of power.
 
1075sarge33rd
      ID: 4717718
      Thu, Apr 05, 2012, 07:57
Not true Khahan.

The healthcare market, is unlike any other. People dont choose to gethit by a car and have to be ambulance transported to a hospital. People dont choose to get cancer and need chemo. People dont choose, to have accidents and suffer amputations. The healthcare market is not entered by choice. It is not bought into, following days, week, months of research to determine which product you want, or where you can get the "best deal". It is however, a HUGE chunk of the national economy. Those factors, make it Congress' business via the Commerce Clause.

Like it or dont...thats the simple truth.
 
1076Frick
      ID: 14082314
      Thu, Apr 05, 2012, 08:30
You're going to far Sarge. I agree that people don't choose to get an illness, they do get to choose how they treat their illness. Not everyone wants the same level of care. As has been mentioned above there are a number of religions that don't believe in traditional medical answers.

The federal government regulates features that cars have to have and set minimum specifications, but they don't say you have to buy a certain type. The healthcare market is no different. They can regulate pre-existing condition clauses and rules for dropping a subscriber, but not purchasing from a 3rd party IMO.

I agree that many conservatives are against the mandate simply because they are anti-Obama. But for those of us in the middle (Khahan and myself) we see it as a terrible precedent and unconstitutional. I like the other facets of of the law. I would also support a single payer option, but the requirement to purchase coverage simply because you are alive because of a federal law is wrong.
 
1077Boldwin
      ID: 12214143
      Thu, Apr 05, 2012, 10:39
Another issue is enumerated powers. No one can say that the FF envisioned the government providing doctoring.

They envisioned limited government especially at the federal level.

The idea that the government can provide any service better, cheaper and more efficiently than the private sector is ludicrous.

The bigger government becomes and the larger percentage of the national economy that government runs, the more all the things that the FF feared have of accumulating in the federal government.
 
1078sarge33rd
      ID: 4717718
      Thu, Apr 05, 2012, 11:12
Previoous SCOTUS decision, pave the way for this one. It is not contrary to precewdent and does not do something SCOTUS has not previously allowed. Ergo, it is not unconstitutional.
 
1079Mith
      ID: 50151411
      Thu, Apr 05, 2012, 13:18
Khahan

Its not unpopular with conservatives because obama likes it.

If true this should be easy to prove. National health insurance mandate proposals have been around a lot longer than Obama has been in national politics. I'd love for you to show me the pushback from conservatives when that baby was a Republican brainchild.

From my perspective, the only thing I see that had changed between GOP endorsement of the idea and GOP derision of the idea is that Obama put it on his 2008 presidential campaign platform.

Then it suddenly became unconstitutional, just a few months after Newt Gingrich wrote an op ed column endorsing the idea, which no conservatives had a single crooked word to say about until after Obama's name was attached to it.
 
1080boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Thu, Apr 05, 2012, 13:58
This argument is not relevant, it doesn't matter why someone doesn't like the law it doesn't make it correct. A lot people don't like pornography and have made laws against it but guess what those laws got overturned.

Secondly, Wickard vs Filburn, should have been overturned.
 
1081Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Thu, Apr 05, 2012, 14:33
You're right, boikin, but MITH was responding to the purely political point being made that conservatives only became against it when Obama took it up as a cause. And he's right. And I think it is doubly ironic because Obama ran with the idea because he's more conservative than the GOP would ever say (remember: He went with this plan as a counterpoint to Hilary Clinton's more-or-less single payer idea).

Wickard should have been overturned, yes. But is hasn't. And because that decision tells congress there are very few limits to their powers under the Commerce Clause, that is why Obamacare (and the individual mandate) is squarely constitutional.
 
1082Frick
      ID: 14082314
      Thu, Apr 05, 2012, 14:34
Wickard vs Filburn from my reading doesn't go so far as to say that an individual must purchase something, only that Congress could regulate what a person could produce. If their needs were higher than their production, they would then have to go to the open market. That isn't the same as requiring the purchase. It might be the logical conclusion, but there are alternatives.

And as boikin said, it was a bad decision that should have been overturned.
 
1083Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Thu, Apr 05, 2012, 14:54
What it said was that a person doesn't have to enter the market with a product (or to purchase a product in the market) to be engaging in commerce that Congress can regulate as long as they are still consuming the product themselves. In other words, the mere use of the product is enough to effect the commerce for it, even if the use is wholly contained with an individual.

Farmer Wickard's point was that he was not selling his wheat (i.e., refused to engage in the market for wheat) but was told by SCOTUS that he was still with his non-activity, nevertheless, engaging in the kind of thing that was not out of the reach of Congress.
 
1084slug
      ID: 34342511
      Thu, Apr 05, 2012, 16:09
I believe you flipped that names PD. Filburn was the farmer; Wickard the Secretary of Agriculture
 
1085Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Thu, Apr 05, 2012, 16:27
oops--good catch. I couldn't remember and was too lazy to check!
 
1086Boldwin
      ID: 12214143
      Thu, Apr 05, 2012, 18:25
Can you believe people are so unprincipled as to hang their hat on such an outrageously and obviously wrong decision as that?

Build your entire house of cards on that monstrosity. How proud you must be. Any lame excuse to seize dictatorial power over every corner of life. How desperate for power over others.

Because you just know so damn much more than the individual how every corner of life should be run.

 
1087sarge33rd
      ID: 13325518
      Thu, Apr 05, 2012, 20:38
and where was your indignation Boldwin, when Gingrich put forth this same idea>?
 
1088sarge33rd
      ID: 13325518
      Thu, Apr 05, 2012, 20:57
another difference between the healthcare market and the 'normal' consumer market. It has been suggested, by one of the conservative Justices, that this mandate wouold then allow the Feds to require you to buy broccoli. That assertion, is patently false.

My buying hot dogs, instead of broccoli, does not increase the price you pay for your broccoli. My being of respectable health and not buying insurance, does raise the premium YOU pay for insurance.

My not buying broccoli, does not require that your fundss help pay for broccoli for me. My not having insurance, will require your tax dollars pay my medical bills, for me.

So by choosing to not participate, I simply shift my burden from myself, onto the tax-paying "you". Since it is tax dollars paying for the healthcare, Congress most certainly has the power to adjust the apportionment OF those tax dollars.
 
1089Boldwin
      ID: 12214143
      Thu, Apr 05, 2012, 23:34
My not having insurance, will require your tax dollars pay my medical bills, for me.

Not if sanity prevails.
 
1090Mith
      ID: 23217270
      Fri, Apr 06, 2012, 00:01
Not if sanity prevails.

Boldy you've been covering the uninsured for decades, thanks to the insanity of the Reagan Administration.

Do you want hospitals to kick uninsured poor and middle class human beings out to the curb or not?
 
1091Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Fri, Apr 06, 2012, 01:05
Can you believe people are so unprincipled as to hang their hat on such an outrageously and obviously wrong decision as that?

Wickard was just the most outrageous of a long series of decisions by SCOTUS which gave Congress wide latitude when it comes to regulating commerce. But you can't really have it both ways--express outrage that Wickard exists as constitutional, and outrage that Obamacare somehow is outside that standard (when it clearly isn't).

I stand by my previous statements, that to find the mandate unconstitutional, SCOTUS has to shed some precedent.

And if they do so and the Dems take back the House as a result, expect either another Obamacare (with the "penalty" now called a "tax") or an attempt at single payer. Both of these would sidestep all the constitutional questions now being raised.
 
1092Khahan
      ID: 373143013
      Fri, Apr 06, 2012, 08:44
Sarge, 1088 - Sorry, but you can't have this both ways. Either they force us to buy a product or not. It does not matter what product that is.

And you feel somehow there magically has to be a reason for congress to force us to buy a product, refer back to the link in 1063.

Its already happening where portions of the government are taking 'staying healthy' and forcing decisions about eating on us.

This is not a paranoid slipperly slope where we're saying it could happen. This is the ball rolling down that slope where it has already happened.
 
1093Boldwin
      ID: 12214143
      Fri, Apr 06, 2012, 10:24
MITH

Yes, I want to go back to the situation where doctors and hospitals weren't jacking up their prices many times over to cover all the lawsuits and freeloaders and where third party payers weren't making it so easy to drive prices through the roof.

Were prices uninflated by these pernicious influences people wouldn't need to freeload. They could actually pay for the services.
 
1094Mith
      ID: 23217270
      Fri, Apr 06, 2012, 11:18
You're under the impression that prior to some point in American history everyone was able to afford healthcare?
 
1095Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Fri, Apr 06, 2012, 11:43
I think we've seen enough evidence that lawsuits are not the driving force behind high health care costs.

#1092: I believe that is a mandate passed by the Chicago School system, yes? This isn't the same as the federal government, and taking a clearly crazy (but not entirely out-of-character) school mandate and projecting it to the federal government's attempts to get insurance to cover pre-existing conditions (among other things) is a bad fit. You don't take the worst example of one one "government" at one level is doing and call this the beginning of a slippery slope.
 
1096Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Fri, Apr 06, 2012, 12:03
Khahan: This article is very in-depth (yet contains some annoying typos), but seems to answer some of the objections you are raising.
 
1097Khahan
      ID: 373143013
      Fri, Apr 06, 2012, 13:23
This has been covered (maybe in this thread, but I think in others). There is no 1 silver bullet driving up the cost of health care.

Boldwins right that lawsuits contribute to the rising cost of healthcare, but its far from the only thing.

1. lawsuits
2. unnecessary diagnostics tests
3. Unnecessary treatments
4. fraud
5. cost of equipment

That is not an exhaustive list and its not necessarily in order. And you know what, forcing us to buy into a system that needs fixed won't fix the system.
 
1098Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Fri, Apr 06, 2012, 13:49
Neither is continuing the same exact system with fewer regulations.

But Obamacare will give access to healthcare to more people. So we need to do what we can. Just as there is no one silver bullet regarding costs, there is no one solution either.
 
1099Khahan
      ID: 373143013
      Fri, Apr 06, 2012, 13:52
Set the constitutionality issue aside for a moment PD and Sarge. Here is a direct yes or no question:

Are you ok with the federal government telling you that you must buy a given product or service?


Just yes or no.

I'll give a direct answer - under any circumstances, i am not ok with that kind of authority or power being weilded by our government for any reason.
 
1100Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Fri, Apr 06, 2012, 14:09
But they already do, Khanan. They have the power to conscript you and send you to war, in fact.

The question then becomes: Do the obligations the government places on you worth it, overall? In other words, does the obligation such as having drugs put into your children (vaccination) a step toward a worthy societal goal?

So the government telling you you need to buy a product that, quite frankly, you should have anyway, isn't a problem for me. Especially when part of a package which literally saves lives.
 
1101Khahan
      ID: 373143013
      Fri, Apr 06, 2012, 14:49
Wow, pd, what does conscription have to do with this? Way to muddy the waters.


a step toward a worthy societal goal?

In other words, "the greater good." Which by the way I truly do not believe in, no matter what the wording. I believe in the power and accountability of the individual. I believe society has a place, but that it is (or should be) much more limited in scope than what other people do.

I do not believe it takes a village to raise a child. I do not believe the government should be able to force me to buy a product or service.

I do believe a society and its governments role should be:
Providing military protection
providing police protection
providing infrastructure like roadways
Protecting its citizens and lands from destruction (this includes military, industrial and economic some of which can be accomplished thru regulation)
Provide a legal system to settle disputes fairly and consistently

As far as health care, here's a solution:
Have the Feds tell each state to set up a health care commissioner, similar to the current insurance commissioner that regulates home, auto and life insurance. Each state must enact its own health care processes. Break it down to a smaller level.

This is another issue I have w/ the feds handling it. Its just simply too big. Its too unwiedly. Just too much to do efficiently and I don't think its the best way to spend my federal tax dollars.

At a state level, however, its more manageable and can be more efficient. It also can better break down costs for distribution. Why should the cost of an xray at my local hospital be affected by the cost of an xray in Beverly Hills or Alabama?

Home/auto and health insurance can be vastly different. But at their heart, many of the same principles apply. So why not treat them same as far as managing them?

People keep talking about the constitutionality of it. And one very common argument is: Well if the wording was different. Or If we did it as a tax.

In other words, they are pushing the the same thing. Rather than that, why not try to truly fix the system?

Thats where I would start. Get health insurance regulation into the hands of each individual state and out of the hands of the feds.
 
1102sarge33rd
      ID: 13325518
      Fri, Apr 06, 2012, 16:22
1092..yes it DOES matter, what the product is. Very much so. Tax dollars are not spent on "me", because "I" buy hot dogs vs cheese. But they are spent on "me", because "I"buy beer instead of health insurance.
 
1103Khahan
      ID: 373143013
      Fri, Apr 06, 2012, 16:35
It does not matter to me what the product is, Sarge. I do not feel the federal government has any business at all, whatsoever telling me I must purchase a product or service.

No dodging, no grey area, no buts...just a simple yes or no: Do you feel its ok for the federal government to tell the citizens of this country they MUST purchase any product or service or face a fine?

Simple yes or no.
 
1104sarge33rd
      ID: 13325518
      Fri, Apr 06, 2012, 18:13
It is not a sismple yes/no question, therefore not a simple yes/no response. There are gray areaas, and this is one of them. My answer, my HONEST answer is: ...It depends.
 
1105DWetzel
      ID: 31111810
      Fri, Apr 06, 2012, 18:58
"It does not matter to me what the product is, Sarge. I do not feel the federal government has any business at all, whatsoever telling me I must purchase a product or service."

So you are also against the government mandate to hospitals to provide emergency care to all, right?
 
1106Frick
      ID: 52182321
      Sat, Apr 07, 2012, 20:27
How exactly is that relevant to Khahan's question?
 
1107DWetzel
      ID: 31111810
      Sat, Apr 07, 2012, 20:43
Because they already mandate hospitals to provide charity service, which you pay for (else the hospital would quickly go bankrupt). So the government is already telling you you must purchase a product or service - in this case, you are being required to purchase SOMEONE ELSE'S health care.
 
1108Razor
      ID: 432493118
      Sat, Apr 07, 2012, 21:20
There are unique properties about health insurance that must be acknowledged in order to have an intelligent discussion about the mandate.
 
1109Frick
      ID: 52182321
      Sun, Apr 08, 2012, 10:42
I see a very distinct difference between requiring a minimum level of care in emergencies and required health insurance. I'll admit that I don't the exact specifics, but I believe it is Hospitals are required to treat emergency patients so that they don't die. They are not required to do elective or procedures that are not directly related to keeping a patient alive.

I see more than a semantics difference between the Hospital's responsibility to treat all emergency patients and the requirement to purchase health insurance by everyone. If this leads to a single payer solution, I would support that. I might be in the very minor minority, but I don't think this approach is constitutional. It might be in some states depending on how their charters are written or amended, but not federally.

Part of my concern is the slippery slope argument. I look at the NRA's stance and while I don't agree with them, they have been successful in protecting the right to bear arms, detrimentally in some cases. Compared to smokers who started with, would you mind sitting in a separate section and are now banned from restaurants in most states and from public or their own homes in other states. The first request was reasonable and simply made the next request a slight increase over the prior.

I completely disagree that the federal government should be trying to regulate the ability to make bad decisions, we tried it with prohibition and it failed miserably and you could argue the war on drugs is similar. Health care reform needs to happen, but this step is not one in the right direction.
 
1110sarge33rd
      ID: 13325518
      Sun, Apr 08, 2012, 15:00
As it stands w/o "Obamacare", tax dollars (or ins premiums paid by those who do purchase insurance) pay the medical expenses (elective or otherwise) for those who choose not to purchase insurance.

Is it then the rights position, that it is perfectly OK with them, thay they are payng the daily bills for someone else, who CHOSE not to pay their own?
 
1111Frick
      ID: 52182321
      Sun, Apr 08, 2012, 15:20
I'm not going to pretend that I represent the right.

I'm ok with indirectly underwriting a small percentage of people who can't afford health insurance and go to a hospital with life threatening injuries. A hospital should, and is required, to treat those injuries. They are not required to take steps past that and shouldn't perform elective procedures unless they have some method or reasonable chance of being reimbursed. If the person who was treated with life threatening injuries doesn't have insurance they still have a medical bill (and like everyone else it is vastly inflated at the moment) that they have to deal with. If the easiest solution is a payment plan with the hospital or bankruptcy they can choose that route. I'm not judging their decision and as I said, the federal government should not be trying to legislate bad decisions.

I do like that Obamacare regulates that everyone must be able to purchase insurance, the fact that it has a higher premium because you waited until you had a pre-existing condition is the result of bad decision or bad luck.

I don't like the approach of the right to be anti-Obama on every issue just because they want to oppose Obama. It is just as wrong and shallow to assume that any one who disagrees with anything Obama does is on the right.


 
1112sarge33rd
      ID: 13325518
      Sun, Apr 08, 2012, 17:28
lol re you last sentence..mea culpa. :)
 
1113Frick
      ID: 52182321
      Sun, Apr 08, 2012, 17:51
No problem, just trying to stop the polarization that seems to happen on every issue. To be fair it is true in many cases, but not always.


 
1114Khahan
      ID: 373143013
      Tue, Apr 10, 2012, 12:45
It is not a sismple yes/no question, therefore not a simple yes/no response. There are gray areaas, and this is one of them. My answer, my HONEST answer is: ...It depends.

Then I would say you are not against it. If you allow for it even in 1 case then you are for the basic concept.

Now, follow the path - hey, the government is allowed to mandate we must buy healthcare. We want to keep premiums down so we want to keep people healthy so you must buy our school lunches for your children. No more packing.

Agree with it or not, believe it or not, that is ALREADY happening. It has ALREADY happened. It is not a chicken little type fear that the sky is falling.

It is a Truman Show-esque, "look at the light that fell from the sky" fact.

My line is drawn at 'I do not accept the government doing that kind of thing ever.' I can appreciate and accept you have a different line. But even after pointing out that there are already people forcibly moving that line back, are you still comfortable with it?
 
1115sarge33rd
      ID: 353491011
      Tue, Apr 10, 2012, 12:49
follow the path we have now Khahan...


you are deathly ill?
You dont have insurance?

Too fkn bad...die.


is THAT, what you prefer?
 
1116Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Tue, Apr 10, 2012, 12:54
So Khahan: What will you do if SCOTUS finds it to be constitutional?
 
1117Khahan
      ID: 373143013
      Tue, Apr 10, 2012, 13:03
Sarge, please answer my question - are you still comfortable with allowing even 1 exception knowing full well that the powers that be in different levels of our government are already stretching it?


As for your specific question, no that is not a scenario I prefer. But that does not mean the answer is allowing the government to mandate we must buy a product. I refer you back to Frick in 1109, as he sums up my thoughts pretty well:
"Health care reform needs to happen, but this step is not one in the right direction."

PD - If SCOTUS finds it constitutional then its time to let all congressman know that they will never receive my vote again if they ever approve a bill that forces me to buy a product or service. That needs to be done regardles. Not just by me, but by every person in this country.

If this is your line Sarge, make it absolutely clear that attempting to blur that line in the future will result in him losing office. If you are like me then let them know that the line is already overstepped.

 
1118Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Tue, Apr 10, 2012, 13:24
Well, that's exactly what the GOP has been working for. Democrats already believe the bill to be Constitutional (and they are right).

If SCOTUS upholds the law as constitutional, and Romney at the head of the ticket, then the GOP has basically shot its wad on this issue. They have no Plan B, and they refused to try to make the law more friendly to their interests. You reap what you sow, and they sowed nothing.
 
1119Khahan
      ID: 373143013
      Tue, Apr 10, 2012, 13:51
Thats pretty bad, PD. There were a number of GoP bills that were put forth before Obama's healthcare was railroaded thru despite the division in the country on the matter.

Quite frankly, most of what the gop offered was crap too. This is not a matter of republican plan vs democratic plan for me. This is crap plan vs crap plan vs refusing to do what really needs to be done to fix the problem

Both GoP and Dems did nothing other than grandstand and put forth fancy and expensive bandaids to cover the symptoms and say its handled. Meanwhile both sides refused to acknowledge the true issues affecting health care in this country.
 
1120bibA
      ID: 4057177
      Tue, Apr 10, 2012, 13:53
PD - I see no way in hell that this court will uphold Obamacare. Am I missing something?
 
1121Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Tue, Apr 10, 2012, 14:10
Yeah, precedent.

According to nearly all previous Supreme Court rulings dealing with the Commerce Clause, Congress was entirely within its purview to pass this law. Such rulings have to have the effect of guiding Congress into what is, and is not, Constitutional.
 
1122boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Tue, Apr 10, 2012, 14:20
though notably more recent courts have not up held laws claiming the Commerce Clause.
 
1123Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Tue, Apr 10, 2012, 14:29
Sure, boikin--that's the job of the Supreme Court. But Congress has to assume, when figuring out the constitutionality of a piece of legislation, that precedent stands for something until SCOTUS says otherwise, or a Constitutional amendment clarifies.

If SCOTUS has the final say on what is constitutional and what isn't, then surely Congress taking their past rulings into consideration when drafting laws is not only expected, but required.

There are a host of Commerce Clause rulings that are still standing. As I said above, SCOTUS will have to repeal some of that precedent in order to find the ACA unconstitutional, but that is entirely in their hands. I simply don't buy that the ACA is unconstitutional when previous Supreme Court rulings have clearly put this law well within Congress' power.
 
1124sarge33rd
      ID: 353491011
      Tue, Apr 10, 2012, 14:41
A surprising nr of surveys I have read Khahan, re public perception/opinion of "Obamacare", is that once people are told the TRUTH of what it does, they are overwhelming in favor of it. It is only as a result of GOP misinformation, that they oppose it.
 
1125Khahan
      ID: 373143013
      Tue, Apr 10, 2012, 14:45
you are still dodging my question. And how obamacare tries to fix healthcare is a completely separate discussion from the government mandating we buy a product. I can put together a survey that shows most people will like obamacare. I can also put together a suvery that shows most people won't like obamacare.

I'm asking about the government intruding on our liberties to the point that they are forcing you to buy a product or service or face a fine.
 
1126sarge33rd
      ID: 353491011
      Tue, Apr 10, 2012, 14:48
I would prefer, a single payer, govt run program wherein EVERYONE is covered. But we will never get the GOP to agree to that, so mandated insurance is the best option. YES, I am fine with that.
 
1127Khahan
      ID: 373143013
      Tue, Apr 10, 2012, 14:49
And what, if anything will you do Sarge, to stop the next step which has already been demonstrably reasonable to expect will happen when we are told what lunches to buy and what to eat?
 
1128sarge33rd
      ID: 353491011
      Tue, Apr 10, 2012, 14:51
next step? Healthcare, whether oyu care to admit it or not, is a unique "marketplace", with unique needs and unique issues. It is NOT, the same as hot dogs, or cars, or TV sets, or ... Quit trying to make like it is the same, cause it aint.
 
1129Khahan
      ID: 373143013
      Tue, Apr 10, 2012, 14:53
And quite dodging my question Sarge. I have not addressed any of those issues as either agreeing with or not agreeing with them. Not once.

Why do you keep bringing them up to me and throwing those issues in my face as if they are something I've spoken on and you disagree with my statements?
 
1130sarge33rd
      ID: 353491011
      Tue, Apr 10, 2012, 14:57
For the "slippery slope' argument to hold any water, there must be a comparative of merit. Healthcare, does not give that comparative. You HAVE to assume applicability to other markets. You use the slippery slope argument, so you must make that assumption. That assumption, is erroneous, and therefore so too is your conclusion of a slippery slope.
 
1131Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Tue, Apr 10, 2012, 15:02
The slippery slope argument is not one that can be refuted with any accuracy ("Prove to me that this other thing won't happen in the future" is hardly an argument for proof).

But if you believe that Congress thinks it has the authority to pass the ACA, then the only argument is that they never have done so, despite seemingly having the power to do so.
 
1132Khahan
      ID: 373143013
      Tue, Apr 10, 2012, 15:03
Sarge, I'm using the slippery slope argument because some levels of our government have ALREADY gone down that path. You are not even addressing that fact. You are pretending I'm looking ahead with some magical crystal ball to pretend this will be a reality. But you are not addressing that this is already a fact. It has already happened.

I'm not dealing in hypotheticals. I'm dealing with reality.


 
1133boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Tue, Apr 10, 2012, 15:05
As I said above, SCOTUS will have to repeal some of that precedent in order to find the ACA unconstitutional, but that is entirely in their hands.

actually they don't have to appeal anything, the court can rule contradictory to precedence at any time. though I am not sure there actually is any here anyways.
 
1134sarge33rd
      ID: 353491011
      Tue, Apr 10, 2012, 15:07
who/where are you being told 'what lunches to buy'?
 
1135Khahan
      ID: 373143013
      Tue, Apr 10, 2012, 15:14
But if you believe that Congress thinks it has the authority to pass the ACA, then the only argument is that they never have done so, despite seemingly having the power to do so.

And now you are also changing the subject. Congress has the power/authority/ability to pass any law they want. They can pass a law that says, "the newspaper may not print something they did not witness themselves" It will be struck down as unconstitutional but they have the authority to pass it.

Almost all I've seen in opposition to whether the government should or shouldn't mandate we buy a product or face a fine is dodging, ignoring points and subject changing. I feel like I'm talking to a bunch of boldwins.

Again, the 'slippery slope' has already been started down. But all you two can do is fall back to the standard excuse of why a slippery slope that hasn't happened yet is a bad argument.

I agree, slippery slope arguments trying to predict what hasn't happened yet and using them as fear mongering is a poor tactic. But in the case of when it has happened?
 
1136Khahan
      ID: 373143013
      Tue, Apr 10, 2012, 15:34
1134: Posted the link further up. My comp at work crashes when I try to get archived posts. But here is an excerpt from an article last year from the Chicago Tribune:

The Chicago Tribune reported Monday that the principal of Little Village Academy decided to ban home-packed lunches at the West Side school after watching students bring lunches consisting of "bottles of soda and flaming hot chips" on field trips.

From the Tribune:

School lunches aren't what they used to be. At some city schools, ham and cheese sandwiches have been replaced with greasy pizza, burgers and french fries. While some schools have tried to add healthier options to their lunch menus, one Chicago school has taken a controversial approach: it banned home-packed lunches altogether.

Principal Elsa Carmona said her intention is to protect students from their own unhealthful food choices.
"Nutrition wise, it is better for the children to eat at the school," Carmona said. "It's about the nutrition and the excellent quality food that they are able to serve (in the lunchroom). It's milk versus a Coke. But with allergies and any medical issue, of course, we would make an exception."

Its also been discussed on these boards last year. This is not the first time the notion of a school telling parents, "you can't pack your kids lunch you have to buy our cafeteria food because we think its healthier" has been brought up on these boards. So yes, its already happened that some idiot is taking the next step and, 'in the name of health' telling parents how to be parents. In the name of health. In the name of being healthy. In the name of eating right...which is a health care issue.
 
1137Frick
      ID: 14082314
      Tue, Apr 10, 2012, 15:34
Smoking is a great example of slippery slope arguments in practice. If you had told smokers that they can no longer smoke in restaurants, but instead they have to stand at least 100 feet from the door, they would have taken the NRA stance and said N"o Effing way."

I disagree with PD that past precedent is on the mandate's side. I see a difference between telling someone they can not make and use something themselves and requiring a purchase.

It is a small difference and the net effect might be the same, but that small difference is key.



Re: 1134

See Khahan's 1064 post.
 
1138sarge33rd
      ID: 353491011
      Tue, Apr 10, 2012, 15:40
Frick? If you can not make and use it yourself, how else do you get it OTHER than by purchasing it?

Re the school lunches..I have seen a few such articles, though most are blowing up a mistake, vs reporting an actual policy/dictate. I'll say clearly, any school wold be in for a fight, if they tried to tell me I was PROHIBITED from sending lunch with my kids.
 
1139Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Tue, Apr 10, 2012, 15:43
some levels of our government

The Chicago Public Schools, as far as I know, act like a government but are not.

And now you are also changing the subject

Heh--kettle, pot. Do you believe (or not?) that Congress believes the ACA to be constitutional? (I believe they did).

You're right--Congress can just pass unconstitutional laws all the time and make SCOTUS work on knocking them all down.

But that's not what happened here. Congress, relying upon previous Supreme Court rulings, passed a law it believes to be constitutional (we know this to be the case because this is the main argument being made to SCOTUS by the Administration).

In other words, Congress acted exactly as it should have.
 
1140Khahan
      ID: 373143013
      Tue, Apr 10, 2012, 16:03
Do you believe (or not?) that Congress believes the ACA to be constitutional?

I believe, like the division here on these boards, some member of congress feel it is constitutional and some don't. Enough felt it was to pass it so now we're dealing. But congress and you and I don't get to make those calls. SCOTUS does.

I can only hope SCOTUS sees the ridiculousness of fining a citizen for failing to want to participate in buying a product and tells Congress, "this one has gone too far."
 
1141Khahan
      ID: 373143013
      Tue, Apr 10, 2012, 16:05
I'll say clearly, any school wold be in for a fight, if they tried to tell me I was PROHIBITED from sending lunch with my kids.

That much we agree on. All I was trying to get from you was a clearer picture of exaclty where your line in the sand was drawn.
 
1142sarge33rd
      ID: 353491011
      Tue, Apr 10, 2012, 16:14
As PD said, a school dist and the govt, are not the same.

Marshalltown, IA...when I lived there. that city and I went to war with one another. They for ex, mandate via ordnance, recycling and require that paper go in one bag, cans (free of paper) in a 2nd, plastic (free of paper) in a 3rd, glass (free of paper) in a 4th and food scraps in a 5th. Those bags HAD to be clear (by ordnance) and the only place to buy clear trash bags was....the city. I work 12-15 hrs/day and refused to have 5 trash cans in my apt kitchen. Nor was I about to spend an hr or 2 every week, sorting trash into 5 containers.

Yes, there are lines. However healthcare is not a voluntary market and can not be treated the same as any other market.
 
1143Frick
      ID: 14082314
      Tue, Apr 10, 2012, 16:48
Yes, healthcare is a voluntary market. There are people (granted the minority) who don't use healthcare. They may not use it for a variety of reasons: cost, religious, fear. But they choose to not use it. They might change their minds in the future in some cases, but we should not be attempting to outlaw bad decisions.

We should be trying to make healthcare available to anyone who wants it. Making it a mandate to purchase coverage is a step in the wrong direction.

The precedent that you are citing was Congress trying to implement a price floor on a commodity. I said it was a very semantical argument, but that doesn't change the fact that there is a key difference between the two.
 
1144Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Tue, Apr 10, 2012, 16:56
Frick: There are very, very few who don't use healthcare (the Christian Scientists, for example. And the Amish). Guess what--they are exempt from the individual mandate.

It is probably worth noting, again, that the law covers those that either already have insurance, or want it.
 
1145Wilmer McLean
      ID: 2899151
      Tue, Apr 10, 2012, 17:11
Militia Acts of 1792 -- Wiki

That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes."


Was there a penalty, fine or tax for not self-equipping properly?

Was this enforced by court-martial?
 
1146Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Tue, Apr 10, 2012, 17:23
There were, indeed, penalties. Non-payment was enforced through imprisonment I don't believe that this law was ever enforced, however (correction requested, please), since the US started utilizing its own standing army rather than relying upon state militias.
 
1147Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Tue, Apr 10, 2012, 17:52
BTW, I heard the Militia Acts argument made some time ago (perhaps on Think Progress) but it never really struck me as being a very good analogy. Certainly being a citizen obliges certain duties and obligations, and the possibility of Congress calling for a draft is one of those. But this particular series of laws didn't really work very well and was scrapped not long after.
 
1148sarge33rd
      ID: 353491011
      Tue, Apr 17, 2012, 02:08
History of the Individual Mandate

The concept of the individual health insurance mandate is considered to have originated in 1989 at the conservative Heritage Foundation. In 1993, Republicans twice introduced health care bills that contained an individual health insurance mandate. Advocates for those bills included prominent Republicans who today oppose the mandate including Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Charles Grassley (R-IA), Robert Bennett (R-UT), and Christopher Bond (R-MO). In 2007, Democrats and Republicans introduced a bi-partisan bill containing the mandate.

Sooooo, you were for it, before you were against it. Where have I heard that before?
 
1149Boldwin
      ID: 12214143
      Tue, Apr 17, 2012, 17:27
And more pertinently it was backed by Romney and Gingrich at one time or another.
 
1150sarge33rd
      ID: 353491011
      Tue, Apr 17, 2012, 17:31
which ignores the REAL question...why was it constitutional when the GOP proposed it, by unconstitutional when a Dem proposes it?
 
1151Boldwin
      ID: 12214143
      Tue, Apr 17, 2012, 18:05
Too much tanking...not enuff thinking.
 
1152Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Tue, Apr 17, 2012, 18:06
At that time the Right wasn't affected by ODS.
 
1153Boldwin
      ID: 12214143
      Tue, Apr 17, 2012, 18:10
Tanking defined: When a competitor deliberately loses.
 
1154Tree
      ID: 423101717
      Tue, Apr 17, 2012, 18:13
Tanking defined: When a competitor deliberately loses.

LOL.
 
1155Tree
      ID: 423101717
      Tue, Apr 17, 2012, 18:13
LOL defined: Laughing Out Loud
 
1156Frick
      ID: 52182321
      Sun, Apr 22, 2012, 15:11
NY Books: Why the mandate is constitutional

A very well written article that lays out a defense for the Affordable Care Act.

I disagree with one of the opening statements.

If the Court does declare the act unconstitutional, it would have ruled that Congress lacks the power to adopt what it thought the most effective, efficient, fair, and politically workable remedy�not because that national remedy would violate anyone�s rights, or limit anyone�s liberty in ways a state government could not, or be otherwise unfair, but for the sole reason that in the Court�s opinion our constitution is a strict and arbitrary document that denies our national legislature the power to enact the only politically possible national program.

To argue that the court should uphold the Act because it is the only politically possible solution is idiotic. The Supreme Court should not take into account the political ramifications of the Act.

But I'm probably in the very small minority in that I hope the find the mandatory purchase requirement unconstitutional while keeping the rest of the Act.
 
1157sarge33rd
      ID: 353491011
      Sun, Apr 22, 2012, 15:18
Economically, they cant keep the rest of the Act w/o the mandate. The pool of insured doesnt become populated by sufficient young/healthy folks, to provide the necessary diversification of risk.

I for one would like Guru to jump in here. If I understand correctly, Actuarial Science was his background.
 
1158Mith
      ID: 37838313
      Sun, Apr 22, 2012, 15:40
that the court should uphold the Act because it is the only politically possible solution

I don't think that's what the writer means. It's a critical opinion of his assessment of the court's interpretation of the constitution in the case that they rule against the ACA.
 
1159Boldwin
      ID: 48351195
      Mon, Apr 23, 2012, 11:38
A pithy rendering from a random commenter (NormanB) after a slippery piece by Jeffery Toobin in the New Yorker:
To put it mildly, the Democrats were too clever by half. To put it strongly, the Democrats were massively dishonest. To wit: If you want national health insurance then just tax for it like the do in Europe and GB. [wouldn't have passed like that - B] On national health insurance, per se, no amount of government rules will make it even modestly efficient. Only by putting health care expenditure decisions directly on citizens looking out for their own best interests in health vs finances will the system be optimized. That's why Health Care Savings Plans are the answer. But, the Dems don't like it because they won't be in control.
 
1160Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Mon, Apr 23, 2012, 11:57
Until consumers get access to real pricing from health care providers, HCSPs are worse than pipe dreams--they are preventing many on the right from making the small gains now in the market to make them possible later.

Most of the savings plans assume at least partial knowledge of the market by the consumer, and the willingness to price shop (which presumes cost information). None of those assumptions are true which is how the massive cost of health care has gone on as a drag to our lives and our economy for so long.

 
1161boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Mon, Apr 23, 2012, 17:14
Re 1156: I think that is point, just because something seems "most effective, efficient, fair, and politically workable remedy" doesn't mean it right.(not mention this statement is probably not even accurate)

re 1160: you are correct, but it should be pointed out that reason that pricing is so hidden is do to the fact that majority of Americans have insurance and as stated here before when you insurance you base your decisions not on cost put on perceived outcome. When you are only paying a marginal amount of the true cost you care only marginally about the true cost.

Prediction: Pass or fail of healthcare prices will not go down.

actual solution if you goal was to actually control healthcare prices you would actually out law health insurance or restrict it to major conditions.
 
1162Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Mon, Apr 23, 2012, 17:21
I agree. One of the biggest problems in reforming is the separation between the health care consumer and the cost of their health care use.

That said, there are lots and lots of ways in which the insurance companies themselves make a lot extra of work for doctors, hospitals, etc., all of which contribute to the cost. The health care insurance field could keep ANSI (American National Standard Institute) busy for generations in trying to make a clearer, standardized process.
 
1163Khahan
      ID: 30223147
      Tue, Apr 24, 2012, 10:30
This new article has some very interesting information. Some comments seemingly support Obama's healthcare (favor more market competition, yet the study illustrates that "the laws of supply and demand simply do not work well in health care,")

Yet others seem to indicate it won't work towards fixing the actual problems (President Barack Obama's health care overhaul, now in the hands of the U.S. Supreme Court, would have little effect on the kinds of disparities seen in the study, policy experts say) (note, this has been one of my arguments against basically every major health care 'reform' presented in the past 2-3 years...they are bandaids that leave the problems covered but untended).

 
1164Razor
      ID: 551031157
      Tue, Apr 24, 2012, 10:36
As someone currently seeking health care, I can tell you that my whole experience has been nothing but a cluster. You're never quoted a price, just sent a bill. When you get the bill, frequently your insurance payment has not been included in the bill yet. Once it is included, there is no rhyme or reason as to why insurance covers the portion that they do. Our largest industry is also our least efficient economically. Who could possibly defend the status quo, even a little bit? Everyone in America, save possibly those on Medicare, should be screaming for a complete overhaul. It affects everything we do from the stock market to budget deficits to individual health to worker wages and on and on.
 
1165sarge33rd
      ID: 353491011
      Tue, Apr 24, 2012, 10:48
yes Razor, but we have was proposed and passed largely by Dems. Therefore, the GOP now feels honor bound to oppose, the very idea they originated.
 
1166Khahan
      ID: 373143013
      Tue, Apr 24, 2012, 10:52
Razor, I agree with your points in 1164 100%. I just don't think anything the federal government is doing or has presented in the past few years is truly an overhaul.

Its all like using paint to cover signs of dry rot in a house. Sure, it looks good and looks presentable. The color is even completely different which can change the feel of the room, make it look bigger, brighter etc. But underneath, the boards are still rotten and ready to collapse.
 
1167sarge33rd
      ID: 353491011
      Tue, Apr 24, 2012, 11:18
I largely agree you with everything you just said K. But the only overhaul that will, IMHO TRULY "fix it", will never happen, since the GOP thinks everything should be profit driven. A nationalized single-payer program, if it makes you feel better call the premium a tax, wherein everyone has to participate and profit motives are removed, is how to remedy it all. ( I say call it a tax if you want to because no one with any intellect at all, disputes the right of Congress to levy taxes, thereby sidestepping the Constitutionality issue)
 
1168Razor
      ID: 551031157
      Tue, Apr 24, 2012, 11:34
I am with you, Khahan. We did not overhaul health care by any means, two years ago. A more aggressive change was negated by those who sought to protect the status quo for whatever reason - opposing Obama, protecting physicians, protecting insurers, protecting pharma, protecting lawyers, or just plain being too ignorant to understand the scope and scale of the problem.

I like the pathetic anecdotes trotted out in these debates by someone who claims to know someone in England (or Canada or France) who doesn't like their health care. What about me? I don't like American health care, and I am not alone. I am young and relatively healthy and pay a good deal in insurance, not to mention a fortune in lost wages that go towards benefits rather than to me. When I do use insurance, I have no idea what I am paying for, why it costs so much or why my insurance has any say at all in my health care options, from what physicians/facilities I use to what treatment options I undergo. And I am someone who has good insurance through my employer.
 
1169Khahan
      ID: 30223147
      Tue, Apr 24, 2012, 11:39
Here's some other ideas -

1. Hospitals must all be non-profit

2. Severe control of the health care insurance industry (not necessarily on the provider side, but on the payer side) to limit the effect of cookie cutter, profit driven decision making

3. along w/ #2, other reform to put health care decisions back in the hands of doctors instead of payers or lawyers

4. tort reform - not necessarily capping settlements, but liability reform against doctors will help. Again, the goal of this one is to help put decision making into the hands of doctors. Doctors ordering a battery of unnecessary tests 'to be safe' and avoid a lawsuit type of thing.

In PA for auto insurance claims we have what is called Act-6, its a payment schedule. In a nutshell it says, "If you're injured in an auto accident, your auto policy pays the bills regardless. How they pay is mandated by the state." In other words, you go for an X-ray. The hospital sends a bill for $3000. The Act-6 payment schedule says it should be charged at $800. It gets paid at $800. Period. End of story. Not a penny goes to the customer.

I don't understand why there isn't a standardized payment schedule for procedures. Let each state develop its own schedule.

Take the drive from profit and $$$ away from health care service providers.

I'd even go so far as to mandate that health care insurance providers are non-profit or can't be publicly traded or have ANY other interest. There's definitely some merit to that. I'm sure there are some pitfalls that may make it unrealistic.

But the overall point is - these kinds of changes address what is truly ailing our health care system. Get it done.
 
1170sarge33rd
      ID: 353491011
      Tue, Apr 24, 2012, 11:42
Heard on CNN last night, a HUGE nr of Americans are on food stamps. The avg annual HOUSEHOLD income for those folks, was a whopping %8800. Yeah, my last employer, my annual insurance premiums for grp health benefits, exceeded that nr. THAT, is the problem.
 
1171boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Tue, Apr 24, 2012, 13:42
The health care insurance field could keep ANSI (American National Standard Institute) busy for generations in trying to make a clearer, standardized process.

Sorta though I think not true, I believe a back in the late 90's there was actually was a movement to standardized billing form(ANSI actually) but for some reason that I can not remember hardly anyone wanted except it and it fell apart. Seems like it was good idea to me.
 
1172boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Tue, Apr 24, 2012, 13:51
once people realize they can not "solve" the health care problem, or at least some one has going to have come out and say you just can not have your cake and eat it too.
 
1173Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Tue, Apr 24, 2012, 14:00
#1171: The thing fell apart because the insurance industry wanted it to fall apart. This is why a specific medical procedure has separate 10-digit codes for each insurance company, meaning that there are hundreds of people at hospitals who do nothing but code up forms for billing.

 
1174Razor
      ID: 551031157
      Tue, Apr 24, 2012, 14:58
There are over twice as many people billing services as there are physicians.

I wonder to what extent different insurers get charged different rates.
 
1175sarge33rd
      ID: 353491011
      Tue, Apr 24, 2012, 15:02
hugely. many companies negotiate with providers for discounted services, as for what the insurer actually pays.
 
1176Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Wed, May 23, 2012, 18:42
Just to keep in mind that SCOTUS should rule next month on this case.

Here's an interesting piece about the lengths the members of SCOTUS on the Right will need to go through to overturn the law.
 
1177Frick
      ID: 14082314
      Thu, May 24, 2012, 08:51
I don't think the two issues are perfectly compatible. The employer fired the employees (a drug rehabilitation clinic) for taking an illegal substance. The lawsuit was filed against the state for not granting them unemployment because they were released for misconduct. If a religious organization were to fire an employee for taking birth control I think the fired employee would have a valid claim. The employee did nothing illegal, just something against the employer's religious beliefs.

I see a significant difference between that and birth control mandate in that it is forcing employers to perform an action that goes against their beliefs.

The full context of the quote from Notre Dame's President. If the Government can force religious institutions to violate their beliefs in such a manner, there is no apparent limit to the Government�s power. Such an oppression of religious freedom violates Notre Dame�s clearly established constitutional and statutory rights.

In a release about the lawsuit, he goes into more detail.
The decision to file this lawsuit came after much deliberation, discussion and efforts to find a solution acceptable to the various parties.

Let me say very clearly what this lawsuit is not about: it is not about preventing women from having access to contraception, nor even about preventing the Government from providing such services. Many of our faculty, staff and students -- both Catholic and non-Catholic -- have made conscientious decisions to use contraceptives. As we assert the right to follow our conscience, we respect their right to follow theirs. And we believe that, if the Government wishes to provide such services, means are available that do not compel religious organizations to serve as its agents. We do not seek to impose our religious beliefs on others; we simply ask that the Government not impose its values on the University when those values conflict with our religious teachings. We have engaged in conversations to find a resolution that respects the consciences of all and we will continue to do so.

This filing is about the freedom of a religious organization to live its mission, and its significance goes well beyond any debate about contraceptives. For if we concede that the Government can decide which religious organizations are sufficiently religious to be awarded the freedom to follow the principles that define their mission, then we have begun to walk down a path that ultimately leads to the undermining of those institutions. For if one Presidential Administration can override our religious purpose and use religious organizations to advance policies that undercut our values, then surely another Administration will do the same for another very different set of policies, each time invoking some concept of popular will or the public good, with the result these religious organizations become mere tools for the exercise of government power, morally subservient to the state, and not free from its infringements. If that happens, it will be the end of genuinely religious organizations in all but name.



 
1178Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Thu, May 24, 2012, 12:39
They are worried that this is a slippery slope. It isn't, of course, but they have chosen where they want to draw the line and are claiming they are doing so in order that all sorts of unspecified things don't happen.

My point in my last post is the same I've made for some time: The conservative members of SCOTUS want to overturn this law, but to do so must ignore or overturn precedent. They have, in fact, backed themselves into a corner, and are looking for the least painful way to do what they want to do.
 
1179Khahan
      ID: 39432178
      Thu, May 24, 2012, 12:56
The problem with your argument is 2-fold PD

1) Its an opinion that the precedent is even relevant. Many people see enough major differences that we do not feel its a parallel precedent. If the members of SCOTUS feel the same way there is no hurdle there.

2) Precedent can be overturned. Really, it can be.
 
1180Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Thu, May 24, 2012, 13:04
Oh, I'm not arguing that it can't be overturned. Or sometime shouldn't. The conservative members of SCOTUS (indeed, SCOTUS itself) put great stock in precedent for all sorts of reasons.

But what would be the point of having no weight for precedent? If Congress can't use SCOTUS decisions to guide them in passing legislation then that would really muddy the water. That's how it works.

I also point it out to indicate that the law is, in fact, constitutional.
 
1181Razor
      ID: 551031157
      Thu, May 24, 2012, 13:16
You can't really trust the SCOTUS these days to rely on precedent. The Right has managed to load the court with justices who don't mind pushing a political agenda. Here is a tiny glimpse into how some of the court's own justices feel about this.
 
1182Boldwin
      ID: 3944693
      Thu, May 24, 2012, 16:45
Oh, the right has packed the court, has it?

Let's forget that the term 'packed' came from FDR, whose court decided that mining wasn't commerce and growing your own food was. Ludicrous precedents we are still saddled with.

...and stay with the present.

Your example is David Souter who Bush was forced to nominate because democrats wouldn't allow any republican nominee to the right of. That traitor to the values of the party who nominated him, David Souter.

Exactly who has been packing the court? But you guys get Kagan without a fight.
 
1183Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Thu, May 31, 2012, 17:24
So typical of the GOP. Try to keep the popular stuff, without a clue about how to pay for it:

The audacity of the dopes.

Same dumb party. Same dumb tune. The dittoheads will soon utilize their 1984 methods ("We've always been at war with Eastasia") to take on what they are now rejecting.
 
1184Boldwin
      ID: 43492714
      Thu, May 31, 2012, 17:44
Placating the people liberals have pandered to is expensive.
 
1185Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Thu, May 31, 2012, 20:16
It is when you decide to take on only the most popular pieces but kick the can down the road about how to pay for it.
 
1186Tree
      ID: 544223119
      Thu, May 31, 2012, 20:27
it's gotten to the point where i'm pretty sure Baldwin is incapable of responding without blaming liberals, accusing liberals of being socialists, accusing socialists of being marxists, or deflecting the hatred he feels toward others onto someone else.
 
1187DWetzel
      ID: 31111810
      Thu, May 31, 2012, 20:55
Only pretty sure? What more evidence do you need?
 
1188boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Thu, Jun 07, 2012, 11:51
More evidence that USA does have the best health care in the world, but maybe the worst system?
 
1189sarge33rd
      ID: 353491011
      Thu, Jun 07, 2012, 12:13
for my money, this is the KEY paragraph in that article boikin:

There is a belief in some quarters, says Finan, that anybody who needs care will get it, because if you go to the emergency room, they are obliged to treat you. "It's absolutely not true. Hospitals are only required to stabilise you. Once they have, they can dismiss you," he says. That's no good for those with chronic conditions like cancer.

Stabilised, and treated...are not the same things. Now, add to the fact that 2:3 of all personal BKs are health care cost driven; and it is apparent even to a damn fool, that our system is broken and needs MASSIVE overhaul. Increased access, being the 1st step in that overhaul. Oh, but that would mean *shudder*, Obamacare.
 
1190Frick
      ID: 14082314
      Thu, Jun 07, 2012, 13:08
The first step would be to break the American connection that everyone should have unlimited care. There is no connection between cost and effectiveness.

 
1191sarge33rd
      ID: 353491011
      Thu, Jun 07, 2012, 13:33
BUt Frick, if we dont agree to "unlimited" care, that by definition means "limited" and thats....oh noooes,...thats....rationing and death panels and...gramma killing. (according to some anyway)
 
1192boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Thu, Jun 07, 2012, 14:40
Sarge you just don't get it? you are going to have to have rationing the question is it going to be by panel or by ability to pay and right now we are using the ability to pay system and what the story does point out is the the ability to pay system has led to best health care in the world, but a very ill functioning one.

Frick I think most people do realize there is not unlimited healthcare, the problem is when the debate of healthcare comes up you have to imply unlimited health-care or no one will take your ideas serious.
 
1193DWetzel
      ID: 49962710
      Thu, Jun 07, 2012, 14:53
I think the problem is that the existing system has led to the best health care POTENTIAL in the world. For most people, it does not lead to the best ACTUAL health care in the world. Because they're not in the health care system that has all those wonderful, cutting-edge technologies.

To exaggerate the point for effect, if I had a pill that instantly cures all diseases and will let you live another hundred years with the average health of a 22 year old (including little blue pill effects), but that pill costs $150 billion -- does it matter? It's nominally clearly the "best" health care system in the world, with vastly better technologies and outcomes for its users than anything else you can point to.
 
1194sarge33rd
      ID: 353491011
      Thu, Jun 07, 2012, 14:56
Oh but I do get it boikin. I just dont over simplify it very often.
 
1195Frick
      ID: 14082314
      Thu, Jun 07, 2012, 15:07
I disagree boikin. If you asked the majority of people if they want treatment A or treatment B, what are they going to ask?

Which has a better success rate? or How much does each cost?

Both questions should be asked, but realistically people might ask if both are covered by their insurance, but the cost of each doesn't enter into their equation.

My initial point that was until can accept that care has a cost, any change is going to be very hard to implement because of the reasons you mentioned. We do need an overhaul of our system and I'm not sure that any modifications of the current system are going to get us there.

 
1196Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Mon, Jun 18, 2012, 11:51
�This is typical Scalia,� added Adam Winkler, a professor at UCLA School of Law. �He respects precedents when they fit his conservative ideology and disregards them when they don�t. � �Once again, we see that Scalia�s originalism is a charade.�

Scalia reverses himself: Citing Wikard in 2005 to expand the Drug War, he now doesn't like it to expand health care coverage.

No surprise here. Wonder how he'll respond on future federal power questions on things he likes them to do, like restrict abortion, gar marriage, or contraception.
 
1197sarge33rd
      ID: 12554167
      Mon, Jun 18, 2012, 12:21
he was for it, before he was against it.

Is that what they mean by an "activist judge"? One who throws precedent aside, and votes according to his/her politics?
 
1198Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Mon, Jun 18, 2012, 15:16
Even talking about health care is politicized, it seems. The Washington Post killed an article about health care, as many of the people in the article were surprised to hear that portions of Obamacare would cover their actual, real-world, health care needs.

The article was "too supportive of Obamacare" and it was killed. Since Obamacare is, in fact, the law of the land, I'm not sure that a newspaper is making the right choice to kill an article which appears to inform people that the law helps them in ways they were previously unaware.

We certainly wouldn't want Obama to look good as a result, it seems.
 
1199Khahan
      ID: 39432178
      Thu, Jun 21, 2012, 12:16
Earlier in this thread, I think around post 1063 and in a discussion spanning multiple posts in the 1100's we were discussing the slippery slope of the healthcare act and the potential for laws dictating how we act/eat take care of ourselves being passed 'in the name of being healthy.' My point was that the government is going to latch onto this and continue intrusive laws using the same arguments for the ACA (control costs, we all pay into it so we should all be held accountable for it etc).

Well, aside from the discussions of events that have already happened there is another one: NYC has recently passed a law regulating how much soda and sugary drinks customers can get at restaurants.
Here is a link to an article about the law. You'll notice this lovely excerpt part way down:

"We're spending billions of dollars for drugs to cure the problem after the problem happens, instead of preventing the problem," said Dr. Bryce Palchick, a general practitioner in Pittsburgh.

"This goes beyond individual freedom; if you have diabetes and end up in the hospital, somebody else is paying for your bills if you're not paying for it yourself," Palchick said in an interview at the American Diabetes Association annual meeting in Philadelphia last week. "Not only are you endangering your own life, you're making everybody else pay for it."


This is scary. I want to highlight how some people think and pull a smaller section out of that excerpt:

This goes beyond individual freedom;

That is about as scary as it gets. My dietary choices for my body now go beyond individual freedom because we all are going to be paying into the system. Its exactly the kind of argument I was stating was already happening that pd and sarge were blowing off as a 'mere slippery slope.' Yet here we are again with yet another example of somebody espousing the removal of individual freedoms for the greater good and using our healthcare as a reason. And it goes beyond somebody just espousing that. There is government action being taken based on that thinking. That, to me, is about as scary as we can get for government intrusion. Welcome to 1984.
 
1200Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Thu, Jun 21, 2012, 12:18
We have been in 1984 ever since you needed to have health insurance to obtain health care of any real sort.
 
1201Khahan
      ID: 39432178
      Thu, Jun 21, 2012, 12:41
PD, why do you think I've been trumpeting for regulation of the health insurance industry for the past few years on these boards?
 
1202Frick
      ID: 14082314
      Thu, Jun 21, 2012, 12:48
Since you don't like one aspect of the ACA, you are a radical right wing Obama hater?
 
1203Khahan
      ID: 39432178
      Thu, Jun 21, 2012, 12:57
I must be Frick.

But then again with what I'm about to say, it would make me just another RINO. There are good parts of the ACA.

Unfortunately until the 'buy or else' part of the policy is dealt with I'm not really willing to look at any other parts. The mandate to purchase is a deal-breaker for me.
 
1204sarge33rd
      ID: 12554167
      Thu, Jun 21, 2012, 13:07
being in the ins industry you HAVE to recognize why it is there?

as for constitutionality..it IS in point of fact constitutional. Scalia and those leaned on Wickard to uphold their war on drugs, and it looks now like they are going to ignore it, to strike this down. PURELY political posturing, on the part of SCOTUS.
 
1205Khahan
      ID: 39432178
      Thu, Jun 21, 2012, 13:30
Sarge - recognizing why its there and accepting the intrusive mandate from my government are 2 separate things.

Yes, I recognize why its there. No, I don't accept it just because I understand it.

And it is not yet in point of fact constitutional. We'll know in a few short days if it is or isn't. But saying its so won't make it so. Saying its not won't make it not. The only ones who can confirm its Constitutionality are the 9 members of SCOTUS.

So the only point of fact is that we are still waiting for a final answer.
 
1206sarge33rd
      ID: 12554167
      Thu, Jun 21, 2012, 13:34
Precedent, says it is. Politics, says it isnt. And the funny thing about that, the GOP thought it constitutional, until Obama endorsed it.
 
1207Khahan
      ID: 39432178
      Thu, Jun 21, 2012, 14:14
Sarge, sarge, sarge.

Precedent, says it is

We've been over the precedent issue so many times. You're answer should be: Precedent could say it is. Not 'says' it is.

Do we need to recount why you could end up disappointed by hanging your hat solely on precedent:

1. Precedent is not an 'end all be all' determination. SCOTUS can give it great weight but they not bound by it

2. Other precedent which is more recent has gone the opposite of Wickard

3. Its not even agreed that Wickard *is* truly precedent. There is a compelling case that there are very material differences between the two cases.

Politics, says it isnt.

I'm the wrong person to make this argument against. I'm against because I believe its an overreach of power and an intrusion on my liberties. I think I've demonstrated on these boards that while my personal beliefs often coincide with the GOP I make decisions based on my personal beliefs. I don't make decisions because some political machine tells me its how I should think.

So save your 'partisan politics' argument for Boldwin. I don't make decisions that way. 'Politics' is not a reason for me to make a decision. If I'm arguing against something or for something its because that is what *I* truly believe. No, in this debate between you and I 'politics' is not why ACA is unconstitutional.

GOP thought it constitutional, until Obama endorsed it.

And that flip flopping and deception which is found on all sides of the political spectrum is exactly why I don't blindly buy into the propaganda.

Speaking of propaganda - making unsubstantiated claims of fact that are nothing more than opinion as a means to win a political debate....now that is propoganda-type speech.
 
1208sarge33rd
      ID: 12554167
      Thu, Jun 21, 2012, 14:19
K, when I said "precedent says...", what I am really saying is that according to almost every non-partisan exploration of the topic, and according to those legal experts; precedent says... However, in the interest of brevity, and since I am not a constitutional lawyer, that part was I felt "assumed".

And Scalia cited Wickard specifically, in striking down state laws to allow medicinal marijuana and continue the Fed war on drugs. It strikes me, as disingenuous to the extreme, to cite it there and ignore it here.
 
1209sarge33rd
      ID: 12554167
      Thu, Jun 21, 2012, 15:16
ABA prediction in March:

link

Scalias opinion citing Wickard and why "experts" felt he would uphold the mandate

Dean Chemerinsky

...And if the High Court were to find the Act to be in excess of Congress� powers under the Commerce Clause, it would be the first time since 1936 that the Court declared a federal social services program to be unconstitutional � in other words, unprecedented in the post-New Deal age.

That in itself, gives cause to wonder what other social programs, the GOP would suddenly challenge, if PACA is struck down.
 
1210sarge33rd
      ID: 12554167
      Thu, Jun 21, 2012, 15:24
Andrew Koppelman, I think says it best:

This doesn't have a whole lot to do with law.


In theory, the high court's health care decision should be an easy one, according to Andrew Koppelman, who studies the intersection of law and politics.

The U.S. Constitution clearly gives the federal government the power to regulate commerce such as insurance, he said. And the U.S. can use any convenient means to enforce these regulations.

"From the standpoint of constitutional analysis, this is a very easy case," said Koppelman, the John Paul Stevens Professor of Law at Northwestern University.

But, he added, "This case doesn't have a whole lot to do with law."

Ever since Bush v. Gore, Koppelman said, it has become clear that the high court is vulnerable to political influences. It was no accident that the majority in that case consisted entirely of justices who were angling for the second Bush to be president, he said.

"I have no idea what they're going to do [on health care]," he said. "That's the great thing about being an unaccountable holder of power."
While he's not sure what the outcome could be, Koppelman said that the justices' extensive questioning during arguments suggests that they gave a lot of weight to "frivolous arguments" against the health reform.

The American people � specifically, those with serious health problems � will ultimately suffer, he said.

"Those people will just be screwed," Koppelman said. "And they will have been screwed by the Supreme Court. Millions of people.


from:

business insider
 
1211holt
      ID: 108501712
      Thu, Jun 21, 2012, 16:17
The percentage of our population that drools every time the Federal Government extends its power over the citizenry just blows my mind. The constant growth in the powers of our government and intrusions in our day to day affairs is a bigger problem than health care costs. It's not even close.

Unintended consequences. It's not just some imagined phenomenon.
 
1212sarge33rd
      ID: 12554167
      Thu, Jun 21, 2012, 16:43
healthcare costs, are the primary driving force behind personal BK, and have been for 3 decades. THAT, is a monumental strain on the economy.

The very health of the society, and the 'health' of the economy; are without question, within the bounds of proper governance,
 
1213Khahan
      ID: 39432178
      Thu, Jun 21, 2012, 17:00
1212: that is a very broad statement and one I agree with 100%. The Cost of healthcare is the biggest drawback to our system.

And keeping a healthy economy and a healthy citizenry is within bounds of proper governance. But that does not mean the fed has blanket unlimited power to do as they please. Telling a citizen, "buy this product or we'll fine you" is not within proper governance for a free country.

Having a local government say,'You can't drink more of that soda,' is NOT within the bounds of proper governance.

Having a school district say, "You can longer decide what your child will eat, no more packed lunches are allowed." is not in the bounds of proper governance.

Here's some solutions that are within the bounds of proper governance:

Sugary soda is not a dietary need for our survival. Its a luxury item and as such will have a .01 tax per ounce applied to any sale.


We believe that healthy eating is essential for our student body. We encourage parents to pack healthy meals. At our own school our vending machines will only sell 100% juice products, milk and water. We will also make sure the food we prepare in our cafeteria meets certain healthy eating requirements.


Both are reasonable, unobtrusive, leave the choice the individual, but certainly encourages a certain behavior.
 
1214sarge33rd
      ID: 12554167
      Thu, Jun 21, 2012, 17:04
Except Congress does have, via the commerce clause, the ability to regulate commerce. That is a given, and is specifically stated within the relevant docs.

 
1215sarge33rd
      ID: 12554167
      Thu, Jun 21, 2012, 17:08
the more relevant argument FOR the mandate IMHO:

If I choose NOT to buy hot dogs, your price for ht dogs is not driven upward because of my choice. Nor, if I choose not buy the, do your taxes have to pay for them on my behalf.

Health insurance however, if I choose not to buy, your premiums ARE higher, if I am reasonably healthy. Further, if I choose not to buy health insurance, your taxes are higher, in order to ay for health care FOR me.

THAT, is why Congress is within its authority with Health Insurance, but not if it were to try and require me to buy hot dogs.
 
1216Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Thu, Jun 21, 2012, 20:16
#1213: We aren't talking about schoolkids (though an argument might be made that the government already requires you to do things like purchase private products like clothing, yet you aren't complaining). We're talking about an activity people (literally, everyone) engages in already. Now we just have to figure out how to pay for it in a more equitable way.
 
1217sarge33rd
      ID: 12554167
      Thu, Jun 21, 2012, 20:34
Speaking of schoolkids however, in most district, kids are required to either get shots (gvt andated health care) or have the parents sign a waiver of one sort or another.

Why is this govt mandated health care expenditure OK, but insurance as a cost containment is NOT ok?
 
1218Khahan
      ID: 39432178
      Fri, Jun 22, 2012, 09:32
Sarge, where does it say, 'Parents, send in $10 to pay for this shot or you will face a fine.'?


Again, thats the difference and the big sticking point. I don't care if the administration can accomplish the same thing by calling this a tax to fund it. Then do it that way. But don't tell me to buy a product or get fined. Thats crap and goes way beyond the bounds of governmental authority in a free society.
 
1219Frick
      ID: 14082314
      Fri, Jun 22, 2012, 10:48
Re: 1216

Where exactly does the government require you to purchase clothing? I'm pretty sure that you are free to make your own. And there are basically (sadly in to many cases) requirements for what type of clothing or minimum of clothing are required.

Literally, not everyone engages in healthcare insurance today. There is a large population around me that don't have health insurance purely by choice. If they require some specialized healthcare they collectively decide to pay for it. I'm referring to the Amish. I believe that they are exempt from the law, but why? Because of their religious beliefs or because they have shown the ability to make good choices and act responsibly?

I would agree that we need to find a solution to more equitibly pay for healthcare. This law doesn't do it. It is a penalty to anyone who is moderately healthy and doesn't have health insurance through their employer.

We could make the same argument that every motorist must have full-coverage, but insurance companies are not allowed to set premiums based on any outside factor.

On a side note, I was trying to see what the minimum coverage required to meet the ACA was and what the co-pays are. Does anyone know where I could find that information?
 
1220Building 7
      Leader
      ID: 171572711
      Fri, Jun 22, 2012, 11:39
page 2244.
 
1221Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Fri, Jun 22, 2012, 12:21
That's a subtle one, b7. Very subtle.
 
1222Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Sun, Jun 24, 2012, 21:35
Bloomberg's survey of 21 constitutional experts agree: Individual mandate is constitutional. And this court will probably strike it down.
 
1223sarge33rd
      ID: 12554167
      Sun, Jun 24, 2012, 22:38
like Koppelman says in the link in 1210:


"This case doesn't have a whole lot to do with law."
 
1224Frick
      ID: 14082314
      Mon, Jul 02, 2012, 11:41
I wasn't quite sure where to put this, but I thought I would share. Via Reddit.

What people call "Obamacare" is actually the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. However, people were calling it "Obamacare" before everyone even hammered out what it would be. It's a term mostly used by people who don't like the PPACA, and it's become popularized in part because PPACA is a really long and awkward name, even when you turn it into an acronym like that.
Anyway, the PPACA made a bunch of new rules regarding health care, with the purpose of making health care more affordable for everyone. Opponents of the PPACA, on the other hand, feel that the rules it makes take away too many freedoms and force people (both individuals and businesses) to do things they shouldn't have to.
So what does it do? Well, here is everything, in the order of when it goes into effect (because some of it happens later than other parts of it):
(Note: Page numbers listed in citations are the page numbers within the actual document, not the page numbers of the PDF file)
Already in effect:
It allows the Food and Drug Administration to approve more generic drugs (making for more competition in the market to drive down prices) ( Citation: An entire section of the bill, called Title VII, is devoted to this, starting on page 747 )
It increases the rebates on drugs people get through Medicare (so drugs cost less) ( Citation: Page 216, sec. 2501 )
It establishes a non-profit group, that the government doesn't directly control, PCORI, to study different kinds of treatments to see what works better and is the best use of money. ( Citation: Page 665, sec. 1181 )
It makes chain restaurants like McDonalds display how many calories are in all of their foods, so people can have an easier time making choices to eat healthy. ( Citation: Page 499, sec. 4205 )
It makes a "high-risk pool" for people with pre-existing conditions. Basically, this is a way to slowly ease into getting rid of "pre-existing conditions" altogether. For now, people who already have health issues that would be considered "pre-existing conditions" can still get insurance, but at different rates than people without them. ( Citation: Page 30, sec. 1101, Page 45, sec. 2704, and Page 46, sec. 2702 )
It forbids insurance companies from discriminating based on a disability, or because they were the victim of domestic abuse in the past (yes, insurers really did deny coverage for that) ( Citation: Page 47, sec. 2705 )
It renews some old policies, and calls for the appointment of various positions.
It creates a new 10% tax on indoor tanning booths. ( Citation: Page 923, sec. 5000B )
It says that health insurance companies can no longer tell customers that they won't get any more coverage because they have hit a "lifetime limit". Basically, if someone has paid for health insurance, that company can't tell that person that he's used that insurance too much throughout his life so they won't cover him any more. They can't do this for lifetime spending, and they're limited in how much they can do this for yearly spending. ( Citation: Page 14, sec. 2711 )
Kids can continue to be covered by their parents' health insurance until they're 26. ( Citation: Page 15, sec. 2714 )
No more "pre-existing conditions" for kids under the age of 19. ( Citation: Page 45, sec. 2704 and Page 57, sec. 1255 )
Insurers have less ability to change the amount customers have to pay for their plans. ( Citation: Page 47, sec. 2794 )
People in a "Medicare Gap" get a rebate to make up for the extra money they would otherwise have to spend. ( Citation: Page 379, sec. 3301 )
Insurers can't just drop customers once they get sick. ( Citation: Page 14, sec. 2712 )
Insurers have to tell customers what they're spending money on. (Instead of just "administrative fee", they have to be more specific).
Insurers need to have an appeals process for when they turn down a claim, so customers have some manner of recourse other than a lawsuit when they're turned down. ( Citation: Page 23, sec. 2719 )
Anti-fraud funding is increased and new ways to stop fraud are created. ( Citation: Page 699, sec. 6402 )
Medicare extends to smaller hospitals. ( Citation: Starting on page 344, the entire section "Part II" seems to deal with this )
Medicare patients with chronic illnesses must be monitored more thoroughly.
Reduces the costs for some companies that handle benefits for the elderly. ( Citation: Page 492, sec. 4202 )
A new website is made to give people insurance and health information. (I think this is it: http://www.healthcare.gov/ ). ( Citation: Page 36, sec. 1103 )
A credit program is made that will make it easier for business to invest in new ways to treat illness by paying half the cost of the investment. (Note - this program was temporary. It already ended) ( Citation: Page 830, sec. 9023 )
A limit is placed on just how much of a percentage of the money an insurer makes can be profit, to make sure they're not price-gouging customers. ( Citation: Page 22, sec. 1101 )
A limit is placed on what type of insurance accounts can be used to pay for over-the-counter drugs without a prescription. Basically, your insurer isn't paying for the Aspirin you bought for that hangover. ( Citation: Page 800, sec. 9003 )
Employers need to list the benefits they provided to employees on their tax forms. ( Citation: Page 800, sec. 9002 )
Any new health plans must provide preventive care (mammograms, colonoscopies, etc.) without requiring any sort of co-pay or charge. ( Citation: Page 14, sec. 2713 )
1/1/2013
If you make over $200,000 a year, your taxes go up a tiny bit (0.9%). Edit: To address those who take issue with the word "tiny", a change of 0.9% is relatively tiny. Any look at how taxes have fluctuated over the years will reveal that a change of less than one percent is miniscule, especially when we're talking about people in the top 5% of earners. ( Citation: Page 818, sec. 9015 )
1/1/2014
This is when a lot of the really big changes happen.
No more "pre-existing conditions". At all. People will be charged the same regardless of their medical history. ( Citation: Page 45, sec. 2704, Page 46, sec. 2701, and Page 57, sec. 1255 )
If you can afford insurance but do not get it, you will be charged a fee. This is the "mandate" that people are talking about. Basically, it's a trade-off for the "pre-existing conditions" bit, saying that since insurers now have to cover you regardless of what you have, you can't just wait to buy insurance until you get sick. Otherwise no one would buy insurance until they needed it. You can opt not to get insurance, but you'll have to pay the fee instead, unless of course you're not buying insurance because you just can't afford it. (Note: On 6/28/12, the Supreme Court ruled that this is Constitutional, as long as it's considered a tax on the uninsured and not a penalty for not buying insurance... nitpicking about wording, mostly, but the long and short of it is, it looks like this is accepted by the courts) ( Citation: Page 145, sec. 5000A, and here is the actual court ruling for those who wish to read it. )
Question: What determines whether or not I can afford the mandate? Will I be forced to pay for insurance I can't afford?
Answer: There are all kinds of checks in place to keep you from getting screwed. Kaiser actually has a webpage with a pretty good rundown on it, if you're worried about it. You can see it here.
Okay, have we got that settled? Okay, moving on...
Medicaid can now be used by everyone up to 133% of the poverty line (basically, a lot more poor people can get insurance) ( Citation: Page 179, sec. 2001 )
Small businesses get some tax credits for two years. (It looks like this is specifically for businesses with 25 or fewer employees) ( Citation: Page 138, sec. 1421 )
Businesses with over 50 employees must offer health insurance to full-time employees, or pay a penalty.
Insurers now can't do annual spending caps. Their customers can get as much health care in a given year as they need. ( Citation: Page 14, sec. 2711 )
Limits how high of an annual deductible insurers can charge customers. ( Citation: Page 62, sec. 1302 )
Cut some Medicare spending
Place a $2500 limit on tax-free spending on FSAs (accounts for medical spending). Basically, people using these accounts now have to pay taxes on any money over $2500 they put into them. ( Citation: Page 801, sec. 9005 )
Establish health insurance exchanges and rebates for the lower and middle-class, basically making it so they have an easier time getting affordable medical coverage. ( Citation: Page 88, sec. 1311 )
Congress and Congressional staff will only be offered the same insurance offered to people in the insurance exchanges, rather than Federal Insurance. Basically, we won't be footing their health care bills any more than any other American citizen. ( Citation: Page 81, sec. 1312 )
A new tax on pharmaceutical companies.
A new tax on the purchase of medical devices.
A new tax on insurance companies based on their market share. Basically, the more of the market they control, the more they'll get taxed.
The amount you can deduct from your taxes for medical expenses increases.
1/1/2015
Doctors' pay will be determined by the quality of their care, not how many people they treat. Edit: a_real_MD addresses questions regarding this one in far more detail and with far more expertise than I can offer in this post. If you're looking for a more in-depth explanation of this one (as many of you are), I highly recommend you give his post a read.
1/1/2017
If any state can come up with their own plan, one which gives citizens the same level of care at the same price as the PPACA, they can ask the Secretary of Health and Human Resources for permission to do their plan instead of the PPACA. So if they can get the same results without, say, the mandate, they can be allowed to do so. Vermont, for example, has expressed a desire to just go straight to single-payer (in simple terms, everyone is covered, and medical expenses are paid by taxpayers). ( Citation: Page 98, sec. 1332 )
2018
All health care plans must now cover preventive care (not just the new ones).
A new tax on "Cadillac" health care plans (more expensive plans for rich people who want fancier coverage).
2020
The elimination of the "Medicare gap"
.
Aaaaand that's it right there.
The biggest thing opponents of the bill have against it is the mandate. They claim that it forces people to buy insurance, and forcing people to buy something is unconstitutional. Personally, I take the opposite view, as it's not telling people to buy a specific thing, just to have a specific type of thing, just like a part of the money we pay in taxes pays for the police and firemen who protect us, this would have us paying to ensure doctors can treat us for illness and injury.
Plus, as previously mentioned, it's necessary if you're doing away with "pre-existing conditions" because otherwise no one would get insurance until they needed to use it, which defeats the purpose of insurance.
Of course, because so many people are arguing about it, and some of the people arguing about it don't really care whether or not what they're saying is true, there are a lot of things people think the bill does that just aren't true. Here's a few of them:
Obamacare has death panels!: That sounds so cartoonishly evil it must be true, right? Well, no. No part of the bill says anything about appointing people to decide whether or not someone dies. The decision over whether or not your claim is approved is still in the hands of your insurer. However, now there's an appeals process so if your claim gets turned down, you can challenge that. And the government watches that appeals process to make sure it's not being unfair to customers. So if anything the PPACA is trying to stop the death panels. ( Citation: Page 23, sec. 2719 )
What about the Independent Medical Advisory Board? Death Panels!: The Independent Medical Advisory Board is intended to give recommendations on how to save Medicare costs per person, deliver more efficient and effective care, improve access to services, and eliminate waste. However, they have no real power. They put together a recommendation to put before Congress, and Congress votes on it, and the President has power to veto it. What's more, they are specifically told that their recommendation will not ration health care, raise premiums or co-pays, restrict benefits, or restrict eligibility. In other words, they need to find ways to save money without reducing care for patients. So no death panels. In any sense of the (stupid) term. ( Citation: Page 407, sec. 3403 )
Obamacare gives free insurance to illegal immigrants!: Actually, there are multiple parts of the bill that specifically state that the recipient of tax credits and other good stuff must be a legal resident of the United States. And while the bill doesn't specifically forbid illegals from buying insurance or getting treated at hospitals, neither did the laws in the US before the PPACA. So even at worst, illegals still have just as much trouble getting medical care as they used to. ( Citations: Page 122, sec. 1402, Page 123, sec. 1411, Page 125, sec. 1411, Page 132, sec. 1412 )
Obamacare uses taxpayer money for abortions!: One part of the bill says, essentially, that the folks who wrote this bill aren't touching that issue with a ten foot pole. It basically passes the buck on to the states, who can choose to allow insurance plans that cover abortions, or they can choose to not allow them. Obama may be pro-choice, but that is not reflected in the PPACA. ( Citation: Page 64, sec. 1303 )
Obamacare won't let me keep the insurance I have!: The PPACA actually very specifically says you can keep the insurance you have if you want. ( Citation: Page 55, sec. 1251 )
Obamacare will make the government get between me and my doctor!: The PPACA very specifically says that the Secretary of Health and Human Services (who is in charge of much of the bill), is absolutely not to promote any regulation that hinders a patient's ability to get health care, to speak with their doctor, or have access to a full range of treatment options. ( Citation: Page 165, sec. 1554 )
Obamacare has a public option! That makes it bad!: The public option (which would give people the option of getting insurance from a government-run insurer, thus the name), whether you like it or not, was taken out of the bill before it was passed. You can still see where it used to be, though. ( Citation: Page 92, sec. 1323 (the first one) )
Obamacare will cost trillions and put us in massive debt!: The PPACA will cost a lot of money... at first. $1.7 Trillion. Yikes, right? But that's just to get the ball rolling. You see, amongst the things built into the bill are new taxes - on insurers, pharmaceutical companies, tanning salons, and a slight increase in taxes on people who make over $200K (an increase of less than 1%). Additionally, the bill cuts some stuff from Medicare that's not really working, and generally tries to make everything work more efficiently. Also, the increased focus on preventative care (making sure people don't get sick in the first place), should help to save money the government already spends on emergency care for these same people. Basically, by catching illnesses early, we're not spending as much on emergency room visits. According to the Congressional Budget Office, who studies these things, the ultimate result is that this bill will reduce the yearly deficit by $210 billion. By the year 2021, the bill will actually have paid itself and started bringing in more money than it cost.
Obamacare is twice as long as War and Peace!: War and Peace is 587,287 words long. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, depending on which version you're referring to, is between 300,000-400,000 words long. Don't get me wrong, it's still very long, but it's not as long as War and Peace. Also, it bears mention that bills are often long. In 2005, Republicans passed the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, 2005, which was almost as long as the PPACA, and no one raised a stink about it.
The people who passed Obamacare didn't even read it!: Are you kidding? They had been reading it over and over for a half a year. This thing was being tossed around in debates for ages. And it went through numerous revisions, but every time it was revised, it was just adding, removing, or changing small parts of it, not rewriting the whole thing. And every time it was revised, the new version of the bill was published online for everyone to see. The final time it was edited, there may not have been time to re-read the entire thing before voting on it, but there wasn't a need to, because everyone had already read it all. The only thing people needed to read was the revision, which there was plenty of time to do.
Pelosi said something like, "we'll have to pass the bill before reading it"!: The actual quote is "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of controversy", and she's talking about all the lies and false rumors that were spreading about it. Things had gotten so absurd that by this point many had given up on trying to have an honest dialogue about it, since people kept worrying about things that had no basis in reality. Pelosi was simply trying to say that once the bill is finalized and passed, then everyone can look at it and see, without question, what is actually in the thing (as opposed to some new amendment you heard on the radio that they were going to put in).
I think those are some of the bigger ones. I'll try to get to more as I think of them.
Whew! Hope that answers the question!
Edits: Fixing typos.
Edit 2: Wow... people have a lot of questions. I'm afraid I can't get to them now (got to go to work), but I'll try to later.
Edit 3: Okay, I'm at work, so I can't go really in-depth for some of the more complex questions just now, but I'll try and address the simpler ones. Also, a few I'm seeing repeatedly:
For those looking for a source... well, here is the text of the bill, all 974 pages of it (as it sits currently after being amended multiple times). I can't point out page numbers just now, but they're there if you want them.
The website that was to be established, I think, is http://www.healthcare.gov/.
A lot of people are concerned about the 1/1/2015 bit that says that doctors' pay will be tied to quality, not quantity. Because so many people want to know more about this, I've sought out what I believe to be the pertinent sections (From Page 307, section 3007). It looks like this part alters a part of another bill, the Social Security Act, passed a long while ago. That bill already regulates how doctors' pay is determined. The PPACA just changes the criteria. Judging by how professionals are writing about it, it looks like this is just referring to Medicaid and Medicare. Basically, this is changing how much the government pays to doctors and medical groups, in situations where they are already responsible for pay.
Edit 4: Numerous people are pointing out I said "Medicare" when I meant "Medicaid". Whoops. Fixed (I think).
Edit 5: Apparently I messed up the acronym (initialism?). Fixed.
Edit 6: Fixed a few more places where I mixed up terms (it was late, I was tired). Also, for everyone asking if they can post this elsewhere, feel free to.
Edit 7: Okay, I need to get to work. Thanks to everyone for the kind comments, and I hope I've addressed the questions most of you have (that I can actually answer). I just want to be sure to say, I'm just a guy. I'm no expert, and everything I posted here I attribute mostly to Wikipedia or the actual bill itself, with an occasional Google search to clarify stuff. I am absolutely not a difinitive source or expert. I was just trying to simplify things as best I can without dumbing them down. I'm glad that many of you found this helpful.
Edit 8: Wow, this has spread all over the internet... and I'm kinda' embarrassed because what spread included all of my 2AM typos and mistakes. Well, it's too late to undo my mistakes now that the floodgates have opened. I only hope that people aren't too harsh on me for the stuff I've tried to go back and correct.
Edit 9: Added a few citations (easy-to-find stuff). But I gotta' run, so the rest will have to wait.
Edit 10: Adding a few more citations (it'll probably take me a while to get to all of them) and a few more additional entries as well.
Edit 11: Tons more citations!
Edit 12: I updated this with a reference to the recent court ruling on the mandate, and address the question everyone seems to be asking about it ("What if I can't afford to buy insurance?")
Edit 13: Okay, I've started up a "Obamacare" Point-By-Point, where I'm starting to go through the bill point by point and summarize it in the same order that everything is actually in the bill, so that hopefully, when I'm done, you can just use my version as a sort of Cliff's Notes version of the bill. Whether or not I continue doing this depends on how much interest people have in it, but I figured I'd let you guys know about it here.
Edit 14: Adding in a few more citations and spelling/grammar edits.
Edit 15: Debunking myths!
 
1225sarge33rd
      ID: 12554167
      Mon, Jul 02, 2012, 12:07
One of the more concise reviews of the Act, I have seen yet. Thank-you Frick!
 
1226Khahan
      ID: 39432178
      Mon, Jul 02, 2012, 13:23
It allows the FDA to approve more generic drugs (making for more competition in the market to drive down prices)
Bad for 2 reasons. 1 Generics suck. In a more technical sense: a drug can go thru 15-30 years of testing and face hundreds of trials before its approved. Once approved and generics are an option the generics just have to prove they have 'similar results'. Think about that before you buy generic.

Second, it won't help control costs. It will drive costs up or destroy innovation/quality. Company A spends $500,000,000 in research. They recoup that by having exclusive rights for X amount of time. Well now, that X amount of time becomes half and there is more competition. Where is the incentive for company A to spend $500mil in research?

It increases the rebates on drugs people get through Medicare This one is good.

It establishes a non-profit group, that the government doesn't directly control, PCORI, to study different kinds of treatments to see what works better and is the best use of money. Good in theory, but application is everything. Lets see how this goes and reserve judgement

It makes chain restaurants like McDonalds display how many calories are in all of their foods, so people can have an easier time making choices to eat healthy Very good one.

It makes a "high-risk pool" for people with pre-existing conditions. . .
It forbids insurance companies from discriminating based on a disability, or because they were the victim of domestic abuse in the past


Good in theory, we'll have to wait and see in practice

It creates a new 10% tax on indoor tanning booths. Good idea. Funding has to come from some where. Luxury items/services are a good place to start.

health insurance companies can no longer. . .have a "lifetime limit".
Kids can continue to be covered by their parents' health insurance until they're 26.
No more "pre-existing conditions" for kids under the age of 19.
Insurers have less ability to change the amount customers have to pay for their plans.

I can only think of the CARD Act right now. Well intentioned but poorly implemented. This section will cost insurance companies a LOT of money. Money they'll want to get back somehow. Those companies will find a way to do just that at our expense.

Insurers need to have an appeals process for when they turn down a claim, so customers have some manner of recourse other than a lawsuit when they're turned down. Good one

Insurers have to tell customers what they're spending money on. (Instead of just "administrative fee", they have to be more specific) Hopefully there is more to this part. Paying an admin fee of $25 is the same to me as paying $25 for extra wages and material needed to process the request. Maybe an outline of what they can and cant charge fees for? Otherwise this part is useless and will just be abused as noted above.

Its just too long to do a complete line by line review, but those are some things that jumped out from me.
 
1227Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Mon, Jul 02, 2012, 14:56
Khahan: Some of those things that you note will cost insurance companies a lot of money are things the insurance companies themselves agreed to do in their negotiations. And insurance companies are cash cows anyway (which probably explained why they were willing to expand the types and duration of their coverage).

 
1228Khahan
      ID: 39432178
      Mon, Jul 02, 2012, 15:34
PD - and some of the things in the CARD ACT were things banks agreed to do anyhow. Yet, all the major banks still made changes to recoup that lost income. They can't let somebody w/draw and then charge an overdraft fee? Thats fine. They just found a new fee to create to recoup that lost income. Cash cow or not, any drop in their bottom line is a negative for wall street. A company that makes $1billion in 2011 then $199mil in 2012 has lost revenue and is seen as negative growth. They'll want to recoup that into a positive.
 
1229Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Mon, Jul 02, 2012, 15:44
What the insurance companies got are 35 million new policy holders.
 
1230Khahan
      ID: 39432178
      Mon, Jul 02, 2012, 17:02
Then they'll expect to see their profits go up accordingly. This is corporate America mentality. Plain and simple. To keep it simple, if they have 35mil customers and get 35mil new customers they expect to see profits double. If profits only go up 1.8x instead of 2x there is a deficiency that needs to be fixed.

I'm telling you, congress is missing this one. The insurance companies have figures showing how much they should make from those $35mil. They also have figures showing how much they'll lose from some of these other rules. And they also have people working on ways to make up the money they are going to lose. This isn't just cynism. This is the reality of corporate America.
 
1231DWetzel
      ID: 31111810
      Mon, Jul 02, 2012, 17:27
Well, then, quite frankly, screw corporate America.
 
1232sarge33rd
      ID: 12554167
      Mon, Jul 02, 2012, 17:33
I will not for one second, dispute Khahans point here. It is the same one I and many others have made for some time, as being at the center of why "pure capitalism", is every bit as evil as
"pure fascism".
 
1233Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Mon, Jul 02, 2012, 17:50
I don't doubt this either, Khahan--the problem with the health care field (in terms of cost, distribution, and efficiency) has always been the insurance companies.

The answer is single payer. But there is virtually no chance of that passing anytime soon, despite the clear savings in lives and dollars.
 
1234Frick
      ID: 52182321
      Tue, Jul 03, 2012, 23:06
A different take on single payer.

From Nuvo.net

As a conservative-libertarian leaning political pundit, I am now convinced more than ever that it is high time in this country for a single-payer health care system. Before you go into cardiac arrest, you might want to read the rest of this.

You know the Supreme Court upheld most of the President's health care plan last week, I think the results will be horrible for Indiana because more people on Medicaid will put more pressure on the state budget to an estimated tune of at least $2 billion. The excise tax on medical devices will likely have a negative impact on places like Warsaw where the medical device sector is key to that region's economy. And throw in the fact that more people will be on a government program just can't be a good thing. So what's a pundit to do? Advocate a single-payer health care system, with the single-payer being you, the individual, who goes out and gets their own health insurance. We can get there by ending employer-provided health insurance.

Most of us get coverage through our jobs and if you have no job, odds are you don't have insurance. And health-care costs eat up a significant portion of a business's budget. If you eliminate the break, there really isn't a reason for an employer to provide insurance and they will start dropping employees like a rock. The plus side of this is that health-care costs will also drop. Part of the problem with our health-care system is no one knows how much anything costs because a third party is picking up the tab. This is a recipe for disaster.

And I don't believe employers dropping insurance will lead to fewer insured. That free market is an odd thing. You will be amazed at how many companies will pop up providing insurance. And since businesses no longer have the expense they can actually hire more people. As a small business owner I constantly hear stories from people who want to bring people on board full-time but can't afford to, primarily because of health-care costs.And when we are directly responsible for paying for our own health care, we tend to take better care of ourselves. By the way, you already buy your own car insurance, homeowner's insurance and life insurance.

And for those of you wondering about those who really can't afford insurance, I don't see any reason why states can't adopt a moderate plan where the working poor, for a small fee, can purchase a basic, bare bones plan.And there are some other things that can be done like allow insurance to be sold across state lines. Then, however, insurance companies would have to register in states where they sell their products and we could eliminate mandates on what health insurance providers must cover. This makes a lot more sense in the 21st Century than more taxes and more government regulation.
 
1235sarge33rd
      ID: 12554167
      Tue, Jul 03, 2012, 23:15
And there are some other things that can be done like allow insurance to be sold across state lines. Then, however, insurance companies would have to register in states where they sell their products...

This happens now and I have never understood this complaint/claim. Aetna for ex, does sell across state lines and it does file its forms with each states Ins Commission.
 
1236biliruben
      ID: 59551120
      Tue, Jul 03, 2012, 23:26
I got high deductible insurance along with an HSA after quitting my job a few months ago, and I really like it. For both me and my boy, it's around 200/mo for the insurance, and I throw 200/mo more into my HSA, which is essentially an IRA for tax purposes. I can even invest in stocks with the money I put in the HSA.

This goes very well with my philosophy that insurance shouldn't be used for anything but catastrophic events. I don't feel any different even though my boy got a thousand dollar bonk on his head 5 days after my old insurance ran out. It just made my feel more strongly that health insurers should be sent cease and desist orders. Because of their bargaining power, they would have negotiated it down to $400, and as a consequence, the hospital passes along inflated costs to those like me with none of that bargaining power. Should I really be subsidizing big insurance companies?

The only problem with all this is my complete inability, despite vast experience with docs and hospitals and an advanced degree in the field, to have any hope of either being able to differentiate between good and bad docs and determine reasonable costs for particular procedures and services, even if I did have any negotiating power and the time to use it.

Health care will never be a functioning market. Ever. There is just no way that even those with strong info and education on the subject could possibly differentiate enough to make sane market choices, not to mention the vast masses who don't even have the resources I enjoy.

Single payer, not individual payer, is the only reasonable answer, as every other developed country and discovered long ago.
 
1237Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Wed, Jul 04, 2012, 19:55
Romney's clear avoidance of advocating an alternative to Obamacare is going to run him into trouble with conservatives who don't bother to offer any real health care alternatives themselves.

In this case, Romney appears to clearly be leading the GOP in their inability to articulate an alternative at all.

Oddly, they seem to be unable to follow Israel's lead.
 
1238Boldwin
      ID: 27652318
      Wed, Jul 04, 2012, 20:08
I don't have another half-day to collect all the stuff I've read on this but suffice it to say that Roberts has set the conservative and even republican establishment on fire. Every single day they become more enraged at the betrayal.

This isn't burning out by November and I don't think republicans will ever again be satisfied with being told by the MSM and the other side that they can't nominate anyone who actually holds true to their beliefs. Liberal nominees sure stay loyal. Not to the constitution or America, but they stay loyal to a fault.
 
1239sarge33rd
      ID: 12554167
      Wed, Jul 04, 2012, 20:11
B, the Constitution was in fact upheld. The mandate, is legal and constitutional, despite all your arm waving and jumping up and down. Just because you can throw a tantrum, doesnt mean it is justified.
 
1240Boldwin
      ID: 27652318
      Wed, Jul 04, 2012, 20:11
Time for big celebrations on the left. Roberts has now shown that he will do tricks and perform for affection and there won't be any forthcoming for him from the right.
 
1241Boldwin
      ID: 27652318
      Wed, Jul 04, 2012, 20:53
AC's twitter account, June 12:
John Roberts, Chickensh*t. Did Obama's Court bashing flip Roberts? Evidence suggests a late Roberts switch. - http://bit.ly/LRyD1W

9:50 AM - 28 Jun 12 via web � Embed this Tweet
 
1242Boldwin
      ID: 27652318
      Wed, Jul 04, 2012, 20:56
AC's twitter account, June 12:
Roberts did go to Harvard! Opin: We will call mandate a "penalty" to survive anti-injunction act, but a "tax" for the power to tax.

8:31 AM - 28 Jun 12 via web � Embed this Tweet
 
1243Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Wed, Jul 04, 2012, 20:58
NOW the Right feels as most of America did after Bush v Gore. Welcome.
 
1244Boldwin
      ID: 27652318
      Wed, Jul 04, 2012, 21:05
Let's just change the name right now.
�One of these days you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children�s children, what it once was like in America when men were free.� That day is here, thanks to John Roberts. Happy �Independence� Day. - MarcusPorcius
 
1245Boldwin
      ID: 27652318
      Wed, Jul 04, 2012, 21:11
 
1246DWetzel
      ID: 31111810
      Wed, Jul 04, 2012, 21:11
Only in right wing retardo-echochamber is "he did go to Harvard!" an insult.
 
1247sarge33rd
      ID: 12554167
      Wed, Jul 04, 2012, 21:20
The Anti-Injunction Act, applies only to a tax, and then only after a loss has been incurred. By calling it a tax, Roberts leaves the door open for this, once the Act is in full force.

Not that I would expect you to realize the boon Roberts laid into your lap.
 
1248Boldwin
      ID: 27652318
      Wed, Jul 04, 2012, 21:37
Today a Supreme Court source told Salon that Roberts actually wrote much of the dissent, as well as the majority opinion.

Salon link contained in Gateway Pundit article.



"Making his Get-a-way to Malta fortress"
 
1249Boldwin
      ID: 27652318
      Wed, Jul 04, 2012, 21:43
Save it, Sarge. We've already moved past the denial and bargaining phase and are now in perpetual anger phase.
 
1250sarge33rd
      ID: 12554167
      Wed, Jul 04, 2012, 21:52
Couple questions for ya B:

(1) When was the last time, you saw the GOP THIS worked up and active? {Roberts may well have handed the GOP, the only route they had to a WH win come Nov}
(2) Rule the mandate is NOT a tax, and to repeal, you need a super majority in the Senate, to be filibuster proof. BUT, if it IS a tax, by rule, that can be done via reconciliation, and only a simply majority is needed.

So on at LEAST 2 counts, Roberts just paved the otherwise muddy and rocky road for the GOP, and here you all are, ready to burn him at the stake. Too friggin short sighted, to see reality, eh?
 
1251Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Wed, Jul 04, 2012, 22:01
The whole reaction by the Right just makes me laugh my ass off. For decades the Right were about getting rid of deadbeats in federal programs (remember Reagan's mythical "welfare queen?"). Their mere existence was a sign of the degeneration of society.

Now, they want to have a cage deathmatch over their support of deadbeats in Obamacare (those who refuse to purchase their own insurance, or pay the penalty), yet who expect to use health care paid by others entirely whenever they think they'll actually need it.

You go, GOP! Work yourselves up into a froth for the deadbeats! Please please please make this election about the right of the deadbeats.

[Meanwhile, they literally have no policy ideas on healthcare. None. Watch as Boehner and McConnell twist in the wind when asked specifically about their plans to get the 30 million uninsured into the health care insurance system.
 
1252Boldwin
      ID: 27652318
      Wed, Jul 04, 2012, 22:09
Sarge

Fine points. I've already considered them. If I thot he was that Machiavellian I'd consider taking at least one relaxed breath, but his job isn't to figure out a court face-saving Rube Goldberg conspiracy. It's to uphold the constitution.
 
1253Boldwin
      ID: 27652318
      Wed, Jul 04, 2012, 22:11
Meanwhile, they literally have no policy ideas on healthcare.

We've had one for over 200 years. Freedom.
 
1254sarge33rd
      ID: 12554167
      Wed, Jul 04, 2012, 22:15
yeah, the freedom to die, if you lack the 100k for an appendix operation, or the 10k annually for an insurance premium.
 
1255Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Wed, Jul 04, 2012, 22:27
We've had one for over 200 years. Freedom.

Keep 'em coming! You're killing us. Literally.

Hey--I got an idea! Why not get your GOP shining light of Sarah Palin to spearhead your new healthcare initiative?
 
1256sarge33rd
      ID: 12554167
      Wed, Jul 04, 2012, 22:33
but only for the "real" Americans
 
1257Tree
      ID: 17039238
      Thu, Jul 05, 2012, 01:51
Every single day they become more enraged at the betrayal.

by upholding the Constitution?

now, all of us here are aware that you support breaking the law and idolize criminals, but there was no betrayal here - this was someone putting the law above politics, something that has become foreign to you.
 
1258Tree
      ID: 17039238
      Thu, Jul 05, 2012, 01:56
but only for the "real" Americans

Like Hulk Hogan and Kenny Powers, of course.



 
1259Pancho Villa
      ID: 597172916
      Thu, Jul 05, 2012, 10:31
I would be more apt to take the cries of "Freedom!" more seriously if it weren't for the fact that most of those who are complaining that the ACA denies it have been big proponents of the War on Drugs, which has seen the incarceration of millions of non-violent Americans through the decades.

In the last 20 years...the total crime rate has declined about 15.6%.
Of every 99 people in America, 1 of them is in jail. That is 1.6 million of your fellow Americans. This is an increase of 25,000 prisoners within the last year and an increase of 1 million in the last 20 years. The increase is blamed on mandatory sentencing, non-violent crime incarceration, and three strike policies.


Is there a more illuminating example of loss of freedom than imprisonment? I'm no fan of being forced to buy health insurance, but I'll take that over a prison sentence for selling a few buds to an undercover cop any day.

The conservatives and libertarians who voice their outrage at the egregious infringements of freedom brought about by mass incarceration of non-violent Americans are the voices who can speak about loss of freedom in honest terms. Otherwise, it's a joke, with half-term governor Palin the lead comedian. link
 
1260Boldwin
      ID: 196459
      Thu, Jul 05, 2012, 10:57
A) That doesn't touch me as I am reluctantly, tepidly anti-drug war.

B) The proposition that the drug culture is non-violent, innocent and harmless has some large holes in it.
 
1261Boldwin
      ID: 2664163
      Wed, Jul 11, 2012, 08:10
Government Healthcare



Pretty much any government program in fact.
 
1262Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Wed, Jul 11, 2012, 11:06
Boldwin's worse nightmare: Americans split evenly on the Supreme Court�s recent 5 to 4 decision upholding Obama�s health-care law, with 42 percent approving of the decision and 44 percent opposing it. But in a significant change, the legislation is now viewed less negatively than it was before the ruling. In the new survey, 47 percent support the law and 47 percent oppose it. In April, 39 percent backed it and 53 percent opposed it.

More people are starting to take their medicine.

 
1263Boldwin
      ID: 2664163
      Wed, Jul 11, 2012, 11:32
No, I will not play doctor with you.
 
1264sarge33rd
      ID: 12554167
      Wed, Jul 11, 2012, 11:36
translation: la-la-la-la-la-la-I-la-la-cant-la-la-la-hear-la-la-la-you-la-la-la
 
1265Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Wed, Jul 11, 2012, 11:41
Heh. What does the Chicken Little do when people start ignoring him?

The GOP has painted itself in a corner, by demonizing Obamacare to the point where they lose serious face with their base if they don't repeal it. And they can't do that.

In fact, they can't even offer up changes to it--having failed to win in the legislature, they staked everything on the black robes of SCOTUS and now have to double down (or is it triple down). Even the parts of Obamacare they like are now ones they want to retain.

Too bad, really. They've had constant opportunities to make things better for themselves and others but have continually chosen to act as petulant children. And now that people are turning away from the whiners back to the real world, they are sitting in a corner by themselves.
 
1266Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Wed, Jul 11, 2012, 18:43
Any whining about the tax penalty/credit needs to be done in light of the tax subsidies being offered for the purchase of health insurance. Here's a handy calculator from Kaiser.
 
1267Boldwin
      ID: 2664163
      Thu, Jul 12, 2012, 01:16
It is not a done deal.
It hasn�t even been a fortnight since the Supreme Court four Dem rubber stamps and one traitor upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, and the House of Representatives have already voted in favor of a repeal. All Republicans supported the repeal in this afternoon�s vote, along with five Democrats - Mike Ross (AR), Mike McIntyre (NC), Larry Kissell (NC), and Jim Matheson (UT) -- in a vote of 244 - 185.
Oh, and you libs are SOOOO losing the Senate. Thanks to this issue.
 
1268Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Thu, Jul 12, 2012, 01:19
It was their 33rd time voting on this. Guess what--it doesn't pass the Senate.

I guess the 33rd time is the charm for you?
 
1269Boldwin
      ID: 2664163
      Thu, Jul 12, 2012, 01:46
Oh, and thanks for the freebie in Nebraska. The "Cornhusker Kickback" handed Republicans the Nebraska senate seat on a platter.

Ben Nelson and seven other incumbent senate Dems didn't even bother to run this cycle.
 
1270Boldwin
      ID: 2664163
      Thu, Jul 12, 2012, 01:51
And thanks for nominating Elizabeth Fauxcahontas Warren.

Who woulda thot Mass was in play?
 
1271Boldwin
      ID: 2664163
      Thu, Jul 12, 2012, 02:44
John Kyle...Kay Bailey Hutchisen...

b'bye

Herb Kohl of Wisconsin...Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico...Joseph Lieberman...

Careful with the screen door.

Hawaii former governor Republican Linda Lingle gets to mock current Gov Democrat Neil 'I knew Barry when he wasn't here' Abercrombie who is riding at 30% approval numbers, as she seeks the senate seat.

Scandal hits Democrats� Senate chances [in Nevada] - hyper partisan Salon, Dem mouthpiece

North Dakota is in the bag.

Obama is a deadly anchor in Missouri.
The easy way to put this is that the Republican Senate majority depends entirely on Mitt Romney�s performance in November. If Romney wins with even a slight majority, then�given the decline of split-ticket voting�odds are good that Republicans [will win the Senate]. By contrast, an Obama win�which would imply high minority turnout�would likely result in a narrow Senate majority for Democrats, and a smaller House majority for Republicans. In other words, we would have a variation on the status quo. - Mother Jones
Virginia One Termer Jim Webb saw the writing on the wall and didn't run again. D candidate Tim Kaine is joined at the hip to Obama in coal country. Virginia is considered a crucial bell weather state in this year's election.

ACA has the luck of the devil and even if Republicans take Senate/House/WH I'm not counting that bastard entirely dead yet, but it looks to be in considerable trouble.
 
1272Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Thu, Jul 12, 2012, 02:53
Oh no--thank *you* for running solid Tea Partiers Christine O'Donnell and Sharron Angle in 2010, giving new life to the Dems and letting them retain the Senate. I know the second one was particularly difficult for you, given the fact that Harry Reid should have gotten his butt kicked by Angle couldn't talk her way out of a paper bag.

Meanwhile, the GOP has 43 seats (both Republicans not running, and safe seats) and must pick up each and every one of the (currently) 8 tossup races. And that's just to get a majority. As you know, the way the GOP has played it in the Senate means that they really need 60 votes.

And to overrule an Obama veto on an overturning of Obamacare (the current Far Right wet dream, which replaced SCOTUS overturning Obamacare), they would need to win 2/3.

I'll give you all the tossups of HI, MA, ME, MT, ME, NV, VA, WI and you still won't overturn Obamacare.

You don't have the numbers. You better starting working on a Plan B.
 
1273Boldwin
      ID: 2664163
      Thu, Jul 12, 2012, 03:03
Sarge will tell you it will only take 50 votes and the Mitt's VP to win a budget reconciliation bill defunding and killing Obamacare.

I am currently researching medical care options in foreign countries. AKA medical tourism.
 
1274Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Thu, Jul 12, 2012, 03:24
Do it! Maybe you can say "hi" to Rush. Although he's going to Costa Rica, which has single payer.

I think you'll find that any country with decent and affordable health care already has a single payer system. [Hint: It isn't a coincidence].

Pinning your hopes now on a Mitt Romney victory? Sad--a Romney win (combined with winning 7 of 8 tossup states) is even less likely. Please stop hoping some one or something else will bail you guys out of having to do the right thing.
 
1275Boldwin
      ID: 2664163
      Thu, Jul 12, 2012, 05:34
The hope that America won't turn into Greece springs eternal.
 
1276Tree
      ID: 12691211
      Thu, Jul 12, 2012, 12:13
It hasn�t even been a fortnight since the Supreme Court four Dem rubber stamps and one traitor upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act,

a traitor, because he sides with the law, and not politics. how shocking for a judge. a judge that truly defies the "activist" label that wing nuts are rabid over, and instead, he's a traitor.

i also like how the four conservatives, however, are not rubber stamps. typical of the American right to be so wrong.


and Baldwin's predictions are always laughable. he's been right, what, once in several thousand predictions.

 
1277Khahan
      ID: 39432178
      Thu, Jul 12, 2012, 12:25
Oh please Tree. If ACA had been over-turned you'd be calling anybody who voted against it an activist judge who is playing politics, just like Baldwin is. Please, stop making these issues out to be 'conservatives are the ones doing this.' Its both sides of the party. The constant need to blame just the other side of an activity that both sides take great pleasure in participating just further deepens the gap between both sides and polarizes the issues.
 
1278sarge33rd
      ID: 12554167
      Thu, Jul 12, 2012, 12:36
99% of the time K, I would absolutely and totally agree with your above blame on both parties. But this SCOTUS ruling *IS* different.

The GOP raised this very Health Care prospect 3 times in the Legislature. It was written BY a rightwing think-tank. It was instituted BY a GOP Gov in his state, and not one time throughout all of that, was "constitutionality" an issue for the GOP. No, that didnt become an issue until a Dem took up the cause and got it done. That didnt become an issue, until the rabid-right assumed a posture of "oppose Obama even when he endorses OUR ideas" mantra.

In this SCOTUS case, the lefts claims of judicial restraint by Roberts with his upholding, vs the inevitable claims of partisanship had he struck it down...are in point of fact, spot on.
 
1279Tree
      ID: 26161212
      Thu, Jul 12, 2012, 13:19
If ACA had been over-turned you'd be calling anybody who voted against it an activist judge who is playing politics, just like Baldwin is.

no. as Sarge pointed out, this is different.

the difference here is that previously, the Right has applied that activist label to left-leaning judges.

now that "one of their own" voted to uphold a law instead of playing politics, he's a "traitor". this is VERY different.

this country had been losing faith in lots of things because of the partisan politics. Roberts' vote, for a lot of people, re-affirmed what this country is supposed to be about, and because the highest court in the land backed the ACA, more people are now willing to take a second look at it.
 
1280Frick
      ID: 14082314
      Thu, Jul 12, 2012, 13:26
Khahan's point is still valid. If Robert's had voted to overturn ACA, the left would be screaming about politization of Supreme Court judges, but only the ones that didn't vote the way the wanted.

Here's the thing. If we polled American's 40% would probably not have any more reaction other than, it was found constitutional, moving on.
 
1281Boldwin
      ID: 2664163
      Thu, Jul 12, 2012, 19:33
This time it was really different. The Dem rubber stamps on the court detirmined the one justice who could be turned and quite contary to tradition, initiated a very public blackmail campaign against the reputation of Roberts' legacy.

Cowardice like Roberts displayed in caving will surely be rewarded with much more of the same.
 
1282sarge33rd
      ID: 12554167
      Thu, Jul 12, 2012, 19:39
No B. For gawds sake....the GOP came up with this idea, and they thought it constitutional.

3 times, the GOP introduced this legislation in Congress. And they felt it constitutional each time.

A GOP Gov, institutes this same policy in his state. And that is constitutional.

He says at the time, he'd like ti see it applied FEDERALLY. And the GOP found it constitutional then.

A Dem Pres embraces the idea and passes it. BOOM!! Suddenly it is unconstitutional.

HORSESHIT. This is why the left would have a leg to stand on if Roberts had overturned it, but the right does not have a leg to stand on, with his upholding it.

Anyone who can not or does not see the difference, is a blind ass partisan hack. Pure and simple.
 
1283Boldwin
      ID: 2664163
      Thu, Jul 12, 2012, 20:21
Have some broccoli...no really, I insist.
 
1284sarge33rd
      ID: 12554167
      Thu, Jul 12, 2012, 20:38
lol nobody denies B...that you are in fact a blind partisan hack.
 
1285boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Fri, Jul 13, 2012, 10:01
3 times, the GOP introduced this legislation in Congress. And they felt it constitutional each time.

I won't comment because I don't know if this true or not.

A GOP Gov, institutes this same policy in his state. And that is constitutional.

not relevant as state laws don't have to be constitutional at the federal level.
 
1286Mith
      ID: 18451815
      Fri, Jul 13, 2012, 11:25
Well Congress doesn't have the final say on what it constitutional anyway.

His point is that the GOP was eager to see the healthcare mandate become law until they decided it served them better as a vessel to trick a large number of Americans into hating their president.
 
1287Mith
      ID: 18451815
      Fri, Jul 13, 2012, 11:29
And so the cries of activist/rubber stamp/traitor judges regarding constitutionality of the law is hard to take seriously from them since we still have the same constitution we did 15 years when they were all for it.
 
1288Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Fri, Jul 13, 2012, 11:42
not relevant as state laws don't have to be constitutional at the federal level.

State citizens are still US citizens; states cannot pass laws that violate the US constitution.
 
1289Boldwin
      ID: 2664163
      Fri, Jul 13, 2012, 11:44
Hey, just because you can find traitors to conservatism doesn't prove anything.

American Enterprise Institute, a putitively conservative outfit, prolly more neocon than con...but I think even Limbaugh touts them. So anyway, they are presently hosting a 'bi-partisan' conference plotting how to bring about a global carbon tax [which would fund the UN]. This is just unthinkable on so many levels.

This does not mean conservatives in general are suddenly going to back empowering the UN nor should they.

Forced participation in socialized medicine was wrong when Hilary tried to impliment it, wrong when Romney passed it, wrong when any putatively conservative group touts it, wrong wrong wrong. And wrong also.
 
1290Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Fri, Jul 13, 2012, 12:23
This is just unthinkable on so many levels.

Polluters shouldn't have to pay?

Forced participation in socialized medicine

I think you misunderstand the meaning of "socialized." There is no change to the actual medicine part. Only how one is going to pay for it.
 
1291sarge33rd
      ID: 12554167
      Fri, Jul 13, 2012, 12:39
re 1285:

The mandate made its political d�but in a 1989 Heritage Foundation brief titled �Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans,� as a counterpoint to the single-payer system and the employer mandate, which were favored in Democratic circles.

link



In 1993, 23 Republican senators, including then-Minority Leader Robert Dole, cosponsored a bill introduced by Senator John Chafee that sought to achieve universal coverage through a mandate that is, a mandate on individuals to buy insurance. Nearly every major health care interest group had endorsed substantial reforms--grandiose ones, in fact. The American Medical Association (AMA) and Health Insurance Association of America (HIAA), the two great, historic bastions of opposition to compulsory health insurance, both went on record in support of an employer mandate and universal coverage. Even the U.S. Chamber of Commerce endorsed an employer mandate, as did many large corporations........Of course, not just the Clinton plan was defeated. Every other proposal--the Cooper, Chafee, Moynihan, Mitchell, Cooper and Grandy, and mainstream group plans, to mention only the most prominent, consensus-building efforts--died in Congress.

link

from the 1st link above:

Ten years later, Senator Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, began picking his way back through the history�he read �The System� four times�and he, too, came to focus on the Chafee bill. He began building a proposal around the individual mandate, and tested it out on both Democrats and Republicans. �Between 2004 and 2008, I saw over eighty members of the Senate, and there were very few who objected,� Wyden says. In December, 2006, he unveiled the Healthy Americans Act. In May, 2007, Bob Bennett, a Utah Republican, who had been a sponsor of the Chafee bill, joined him. Wyden-Bennett was eventually co-sponsored by eleven Republicans and nine Democrats, receiving more bipartisan support than any universal health-care proposal in the history of the Senate. It even caught the eye of the Republican Presidential aspirants. In a June, 2009, interview on �Meet the Press,� Mitt Romney, who, as governor of Massachusetts, had signed a universal health-care bill with an individual mandate, said that Wyden-Bennett was a plan �that a number of Republicans think is a very good health-care plan�one that we support.�
 
1292sarge33rd
      ID: 12554167
      Fri, Jul 13, 2012, 12:40
not relevant as state laws don't have to be constitutional at the federal level.

THAT, is a laughable comment. Yes, they most certainly do.
 
1293boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Fri, Jul 13, 2012, 12:45
State citizens are still US citizens; states cannot pass laws that violate the US constitution.

but states can pass laws the federal government can and vice versus, based on the 10th amendment. If doubt this then there would be no need to commerce clause would never needed to be sighted.
 
1294Mith
      ID: 18451815
      Fri, Jul 13, 2012, 12:56
traitors to conservatism

This phrase doesn't really mean anything. The conservative meme in the 90s was that the mandate would prevent healthcare "freeloading" and make each individual responsible for covering healthcare services that will be provided to him.

That meme was enjoyed broad support among GOP elected officials because of Ronald Reagan's earlier healthcare mandate that American taxpayers are responsible for covering emergency healthcare costs of the uninsured.

For you guys it's just a matter of which of the conflicting conservative principles will best demonize the opposition at the moment. 20 years the overriding meme was about sticking it to healthcare freeloaders.

Now it's more important to preserve economic liberty. Sure.






I wonder how Alaska's end of life consultations (openly supported by Sarah Palin there before she tied the same ACA program in with her "death panels" fearmongering) are working out.
 
1295Mith
      ID: 18451815
      Fri, Jul 13, 2012, 12:57
Sarge 1229 - Not necessarily. This disagreement might be more about semantics.
 
1296sarge33rd
      ID: 12554167
      Fri, Jul 13, 2012, 13:02
No state can pass and enforce any law, which is unconstitutional. Now, yes they can pass it and enforce it UNTIL, it is declared unconstitutional...but the law must pass constitutional muster, to stay on the books. Semantics or no.
 
1297boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Fri, Jul 13, 2012, 13:31
States can pass laws that the constitution does not allow federal government to pass, ie the law would be constitutional at the state level but not the national level.
 
1298sarge33rd
      ID: 12554167
      Fri, Jul 13, 2012, 13:39
OK...now I understand what you were getting at MITH.

Yes, the constitution grants powers to the state not held by the Feds and vice versa.

However, the claim that this (the mandate) is federally "unauthorized" by the constitution, was not the GOPs posture when THEY introduced the Fed mandate themselves. Not until a Dem Pres endorsed and passed it, did it suddenly and mysteriously, become in the GOPs view..."unconstitutional".

IOW, truth be told, it isnt the PACA the GOP has issue with, its Obama, and this is just one more case of "oppose Obama" regardless of what he says/does, even if he does something we ideologically agree with.

I for one, am waiting for Obama to publicly declare that he thinks inhaling and exhaling, are good ideas.
 
1299Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Mon, Jul 16, 2012, 10:19
the law would be constitutional at the state level but not the national level.

No, they can't. States can't pass laws that abridge their own citizen's federal constitutional rights. This is why they get sued all the time by the US Justice Department.

We know this because of the reaction in the South to the Civil Rights Act, among many other actions.
 
1300Boldwin
      ID: 18643169
      Wed, Jul 18, 2012, 18:43
When people have the option to leave the public goods game, altruistic punishment will only be stable if enough people are willing to incur a personal cost to procure a social good.
"Cruel to be kind" has never worked and never will work. People are not unselfish. Building systems that do not recognize this fact is futility.
 
1301sarge33rd
      ID: 12554167
      Wed, Jul 18, 2012, 18:46
People are not unselfish. Building systems that do not recognize this fact is futility.

Strong argument in favor of single payer, as per the rest of the industrialized world.
 
1302Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Wed, Jul 18, 2012, 19:01
One of the things you will never hear spoken about on FOX is the fact that the GOP, in trying to overturn Obamacare most recently, also rejected a Democratic proposal that the Congress give up its gold-plated health insurance that was replaced with a regular exchange plan.

In other words, the House was willing to take away other people's health insurance while giving themselves free lifetime healthcare insurance after just 5 years of service.

 
1303Boldwin
      ID: 18643169
      Wed, Jul 18, 2012, 19:22
People never give back anything once it's handed to them, even if it's a horrible destructive bankrupting thing to society as a whole. Which is the problem with every socialist program.
 
1304Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Wed, Jul 18, 2012, 19:24
Uh, right. The health insurance program that Congress used to have that was replaced by Obamacare (you know, the one that the House GOP wants to go back to) is "socialist program"?

I think your memes got mixed up.
 
1305Boldwin
      ID: 18643169
      Wed, Jul 18, 2012, 20:29
I'm paying for it. I don't get any benefit out of it. I can't opt out of paying for it. What doesn't sound like socialism about it?
 
1306biliruben
      ID: 41431323
      Wed, Jul 18, 2012, 21:57
You talking about roads in rural Illinois?

 
1307Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Wed, Jul 18, 2012, 22:15
Police?
 
1308Boldwin
      ID: 18643169
      Thu, Jul 19, 2012, 04:24
What part of 'I-don't-get-any-benefit-out-of-it' are you struggling with?

I, meaning I myself, me.
Do not, negatory
receive...
 
1309Tree
      ID: 17039238
      Thu, Jul 19, 2012, 11:02
I'm paying for it. I don't get any benefit out of it. I can't opt out of paying for it. What doesn't sound like socialism about it?

actually, it sounds like religion.

i don't get any benefit out of it. i can't opt out of paying for it.

if you believed anything you said, you'd be advocating for religious institutions to lose their tax-exempt status.
 
1310Boldwin
      ID: 18643169
      Thu, Jul 19, 2012, 15:06
Yeah, you are paying for religion. You actually found a religion which would help you overturn traditional morality and you pay one to overturn traditional morality? Or you figure somehow that you are paying for mine?
 
1311Frick
      ID: 14082314
      Thu, Jul 19, 2012, 15:47
Since most religions are tax-exempt they don't pay property taxes on the buildings they own. So every other tax payer is thus required to pay a slightly higher tax rate to subsidize the buildings that are tax-exempt.
 
1312Tree
      ID: 53555306
      Thu, Jul 19, 2012, 16:03
Thanks Frick. I didn't think it was that difficult to understand the point. Apparently for some zealots, it was.

And Baldwin, if you really want to blast someone else's religion, you best get out of that glass house.
 
1313Boldwin
      ID: 18643169
      Thu, Jul 19, 2012, 16:11
If and when they tax religion, we'll see whose glass shatters and who has the brick house.
 
1314Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Thu, Jul 19, 2012, 16:22
Sure, Frick-but much of that is made back in other ways. For example, there are about a million kids in Catholic elementary and high schools, who live in properties where public school taxes are also being paid. How do you think the balance sheet for religion would look if you suddenly added a million kids to the public schools?

The problem isn't that religion is some kind of drag on the system. It is that many of the religious right have decided that being uncharitable feels pretty damn good.
 
1315Boldwin
      ID: 18643169
      Thu, Jul 19, 2012, 16:27
Not giving thru the most inefficient legal charity there is, namely government, does not mean being being uncharitable. It means putting your charity somewhere it will actually do some good.
 
1316Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Thu, Jul 19, 2012, 16:32
There is no doubt that the system you advocate will leave millions uninsured, cause the deaths of thousands per year, and be a large drag on our health care and economic systems.

"Uncharitable" is the kindest description you will ever get for the system you want for this country.
 
1317Boldwin
      ID: 18643169
      Thu, Jul 19, 2012, 16:35
Liberals don�t own the idea of the importance of community, of how social institutions and personal relationships are vital to well-being, including at times economic well-being or success. The conservative argument is for freedom, not for all-around individualism. In fact, there�s a case to be made that communities are stronger under smaller government, when voluntary associations and cooperation are especially crucial for getting projects done and ensuring that all in the community (such as the poor and sick) are taken care of.

The choice this election is not whether we should all live in isolated cabins by ourselves or if we should live around our fellow human beings in towns and cities. The choice is about the role and extent of the government. - NRO, The Corner (discovered via Instapundit)
 
1318sarge33rd
      ID: 12554167
      Thu, Jul 19, 2012, 16:38
No small part of the problem with doing it your way B, is that the individuals then pick and choose who gets helped and who gets kicked to the curb. Bias and prejudice would rule the day. Need help, I mean genuinely need help? Then convert to this or that religion, or subscribe to this or that ideology and commit to it, in order to garner these or those charity dollars. Wont sell out for the bucks? Fine, then die.

THAT, is what "your way" would lead to.
 
1319Boldwin
      ID: 18643169
      Thu, Jul 19, 2012, 16:39
And your system will end up murdering upwards of a million elderly a year, trippling the cost of everything it touches to the extent it reticently covers anything, retiring a third of our doctors and destroying the engine of medical and pharmaceutical discoveries in the world today not to mention the best full scale medical system ever seen by mankind.

Thanks brother.
 
1320Mith
      ID: 56351913
      Thu, Jul 19, 2012, 16:41
Somebody make a note of 1317.
 
1321Tree
      ID: 06381915
      Thu, Jul 19, 2012, 16:42
The problem isn't that religion is some kind of drag on the system. It is that many of the religious right have decided that being uncharitable feels pretty damn good.

well, also, the fact that there is more politics from the pulpit than ever. i'm sorry. if you're going to cross that line, you shouldn't be tax-exempt.
 
1322sarge33rd
      ID: 12554167
      Thu, Jul 19, 2012, 16:44
How does Obamacare, destroy either the Canadian or UK forms of medical care? You DID say "the best", right?
 
1323Boldwin
      ID: 18643169
      Thu, Jul 19, 2012, 16:45
Not to mention expanding the time it takes to see a doctor from @ a day to @ a year.
 
1324Boldwin
      ID: 18643169
      Thu, Jul 19, 2012, 16:48
While you are at it, take note. I actually agree with a Tree post. Tax any religion that touts a politician or party. You have my blessing.
 
1325Boldwin
      ID: 18643169
      Thu, Jul 19, 2012, 16:49
Sarge, I'll ignore slapstick non-sense like 1322 in the future.
 
1326Boldwin
      ID: 18643169
      Thu, Jul 19, 2012, 16:55
MITH

While you are noting 1317, remember that the unintended consequence of liberalism having destroyed morality, ethics, character, all the things that nations need to survive, is that the only piss-poor substitute to all that they threw away, is government. They don't have anyone left that they can rely on because their neighbors are now liberals.
 
1327Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Thu, Jul 19, 2012, 17:01
Not to mention expanding the time it takes to see a doctor from @ a day to @ a year.

I think you are confused. You must be under the impression that Obamacare is some highly tortured version of single payer. It isn't.

Here's what you need to know: Does our pre-Obamacare system give us the best health care for the maximum number of people (which, by the way, is the definition of "efficiency"). If not, then you really don't know what you are talking about on this issue, and are just complaining to complain.
 
1328Frick
      ID: 14082314
      Thu, Jul 19, 2012, 17:03
Re: 1314

I wasn't arguing against religious organizations being tax-exempt, I would argue that they are overall a benefit to their communities despite not paying property taxes. I was just making Tree's point very, very explicit.

 
1329sarge33rd
      ID: 12554167
      Thu, Jul 19, 2012, 17:11
1323...factually inaccurate, but whats new?

As for your label of slapstick...look at the their per capita medical costs and life expectancy. Then compare it to ours. By any measure, theirs is a superior system.
 
1330Boldwin
      ID: 18643169
      Thu, Jul 19, 2012, 17:25
PD

Here's what you need to know: The ACA as it currently stands dooms private insurance coverage. Those insurance companies bought themselves a couple more years by giving in to Obama's intimidation and backing ACA.

So quit belly-aching about single-payer. Unless conservatives can get their weasels in congress to vote as they were told, we'll end up with single payer, go home, take an aspirin and come back in a year after you have died, "next", 'healthcare'.
 
1331sarge33rd
      ID: 12554167
      Thu, Jul 19, 2012, 17:26
Infant Mortality:

The US has 26% more deaths per 1,000 live births than Canada and 40% more deaths than the UK.

US 6.9 deaths per 1000
Canada 5.4
UK 4.9

Infant mortality rates


Life Expectancy (at birth)

US 78.49
UK 80.17
Canada 81.48

at birth life expectancy

per capita spending

US 7290/person per yr
Canada 3895
UK 2992

per capita expenditures

Now B....slap that.
 
1332Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Thu, Jul 19, 2012, 17:30
Sorry, Boldwin: Requiring everyone to purchase private health care insurance will have the opposite effect. And nearly every one of the changes in the law were proposed or approved by the private insurance industry.

They did so because they didn't want to see a single payer system. And in so doing have embedded themselves even more.

Unless the insurance companies start acting stupid again, we're stuck with this system for some time, with small tinkerings here and there. Unfortunately.
 
1333Boldwin
      ID: 18643169
      Thu, Jul 19, 2012, 17:30
By any measure, theirs is a superior system.

It gets measured all the time by Canadians fleeing for their lives to our hospitals and doctors.
 
1334sarge33rd
      ID: 12554167
      Thu, Jul 19, 2012, 17:34
Falsehood B. Quit spreading lies.

link
 
1335Tree
      ID: 136411916
      Thu, Jul 19, 2012, 17:46
It gets measured all the time by Canadians fleeing for their lives to our hospitals and doctors.

i've got dozens, if not scores of Canadian friends. my brother and his wife are Canadian. Every person they know LOVES the system they have up there. and considering he's a popular DJ and heavily involved in the community, i'd say he knows quite a number of people.

your words are typical of the lies you worship.
 
1336boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Thu, Jul 19, 2012, 17:50
re 1331: those are not actually measures of a health care system, those are measures to the healthiness of a society. A measure of health care would be given I have condition A what are my outcomes? Don't confuse the two.
 
1337Boldwin
      ID: 18643169
      Thu, Jul 19, 2012, 17:50
Oh look, Sarge can find a liberal apologist!
 
1338Boldwin
      ID: 18643169
      Thu, Jul 19, 2012, 17:53
Research Canada private membership clinics.

Where it is not legally prohibited, the free market will tell you what works and what doesn't. And any sane Canadian who can is getting into a membership clinic to get private free-market medicine.
 
1339Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Thu, Jul 19, 2012, 17:56
We had a free market. And it didn't work. Now we have a hyper free market, in which everyone is required to participate in the marketplace in return for some commonsense changes in the way insurance companies do business.

#1336: I think that is a distinction without a difference. The healthiness of a society comes from its standard of health care.
 
1340sarge33rd
      ID: 12554167
      Thu, Jul 19, 2012, 17:56
Given boikin, that the health of a society is at least somewhat reflective of that societies healthcare; I'll take it.

That they have fewer newborns die than we do, is a reflection of their system.

That at birth, the life expectancy is longer than ours, is reflective of their system.

That Canada and the UK COMBINED, spend less than we do, is reflective of their system.(I'd grant that either pends less than we do, would reflect both health and healthcare. That their combined expenditures are less per capaita, reflects highly upon their system.)
 
1341Boldwin
      ID: 18643169
      Thu, Jul 19, 2012, 18:01
I guess you guys conveniently forgot the 22 year old guy Britain is starving to death because they are too cheap to give him his $30K operation. Somehow you sunny believers can't seem to remember what actually goes on in socialized medicine.
 
1342sarge33rd
      ID: 12554167
      Thu, Jul 19, 2012, 18:09
Yeah, they sure shortchanged Stephen Hawkings huh?
 
1343Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Thu, Jul 19, 2012, 18:13
Heh. Last time: We are not operating under single payer. But if we would, you would be left with no real argument.

30,000 people a year dying under the system you want. And your response is the scariness of a single patient in England?

You claim you want to do things more efficiently, yet reject out of hand the health care system which delivers health care more efficiently and at a lower cost. I don't believe you.
 
1344Boldwin
      ID: 18643169
      Thu, Jul 19, 2012, 19:36
Not looking at the time between first symptoms to cure, just the time from Canadian general practitioner to specialist referral:



Have a nice tumor.
 
1346sarge33rd
      ID: 12554167
      Thu, Jul 19, 2012, 19:50
and here B, is the whole picture:


link

Example: A 45 year old Canadian goes in for a yearly physical. It's discovered they are in the earliest stages of type II diabetes. The person receives treatment for the disease, and does not need medicine for another 20 years, and never becomes insulin dependent. In essence they lead long, productive lives without suffering greatly despite having a life-threatening illness.

If the above example included one of the 40 million Americans without access to affordable healthcare, the disease itself would not likely be caught until the patient began to show symptoms serious enough to go the ER. Instead of catching this entirely treatable disease at 45, an American might not realize they have it for ten or more years. That's ten years of being ravaged internally and means that even if caught at 55, going on medication ten years before their Canadian counterparts. It also means the disease will likely have a greater contribution to the death of the individual and shave years off their lifespan. Ever wonder why Canadians live an average of 2� years longer than Americans? Canadians don't suffer with minor maladies, they get treated for them before they get worse. In the Great White North, more people use more doctors, and here's why that is important:
 
1347Boldwin
      ID: 18643169
      Thu, Jul 19, 2012, 20:48
No, here's how it really works.

First you need a doctor: 17% of Canadians do not have family physicians�about 5 million Canadians have no family doctor. Of these 5 million, nearly 2 million have looked for a doctor but cannot find one.

There is an accute shortage of doctors in Canada so you wait:

Canada is facing a brain drain as one in nine doctors who trained in Canada has left to practice medicine in the United States 12

They'll just retire here in the USA. Not sure where else they can go? Offshore?

A 2005 survey found that just 23 percent of Canadians were able to see a physician the same day they needed one - placing Canada last among the six studied, including the U.S., Britain and Australia. 17

You wait 2.5 months to see if the MRI shows a cancerous tumor. No, not really, that just gets the MRI taken. God only knows how long it takes to be evaluated and the proper steps to deal with it planned out. The median wait for an MRI across Canada was 10.1 weeks.

What if the results were inconclusive and you need another MRI or a cat scan taken?

If it's a brain tumor you'll wait 32 weeks between your general practitioner visit and your neurologist...see chart.

Now you'll wait over a month between specialist diagnosis and operation.

The size of the tumor is important. If it is less than 1.5 centimetres, the doctor may recommend a wait-and-see approach, with a follow-up MRI after six months and another every year after that to determine if the tumor is growing or remaining fairly constant.
Oh yes, let's give that tumor a nice year-long growing season. A delay filled socialist paradise is just what the doctor ordered...if you are a tumor.
 
1348sarge33rd
      ID: 12554167
      Thu, Jul 19, 2012, 20:51
40+ million Americans dont have a family doctor.
 
1349Boldwin
      ID: 18643169
      Thu, Jul 19, 2012, 20:56
Much bigger population. Canadians have paid the cost of socialist medicine, degraded service, without even getting the purported benefit, actually having a doctor.
 
1352Tree
      ID: 146411920
      Thu, Jul 19, 2012, 21:44
my brother in Canada got LASIK for free.

i am forever jealous.
 
1353boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Fri, Jul 20, 2012, 12:48
Re 1339,1340: if your theory was true then why is it that if you break down US by states you see states like Hawaii having a life expectancy of 81.5 which would make it 6th in the world, the same goes for infant mortality. If it was the fault of the the healthcare system then the numbers would all be same.

It also has to do how they account for deaths, many countries don't count babies born premature as part of the infant mortality rate or towards life expectancy. Honestly do you think both hong kong and Macau have some wonderful health care system because they both have extremely low infant mortality rate and have extreme life expectancy?
 
1354sarge33rd
      ID: 12554167
      Fri, Jul 20, 2012, 12:51
glad you chose Hawaii boikin. They have a universal healthcare system...as per Canada/UK, vs the majority of the US.

TY for proving my point.
 
1355Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Fri, Jul 20, 2012, 12:52
If it was the fault of the the healthcare system then the numbers would all be same.

The problem with our health care system (certainly previous to Obamacare) is that it is delivered inefficiently (to the point of tens of thousands of people a year dying because of lack of access).

A life expectancy for one state being quite high is exactly what you would expect to see given the delivery system we employ for our health care.

If we aren't using metrics like "how long you live" and "the percentage of children born who live to adulthood" exactly how would you measure the quality of a health care system?
 
1356Razor
      ID: 551031157
      Fri, Jul 20, 2012, 13:00
Attributing life expectancy differences between states to health care system differences is not prudent given the wide socioeconomic and climate differences between states. Even if our health care was perfectly uniform nationally, life expectancies would vary from state to state.
 
1357PV on Oregon Coast
      ID: 1010151016
      Fri, Jul 20, 2012, 17:38
Hawaii has heavily Asian population, eat fish and rice as opposed to Big Macs and Burritos Supreme.
 
1358Boldwin
      ID: 18643169
      Fri, Jul 20, 2012, 20:05
Hawaii eats spam and lots of it. They are all as good as dead.
 
1359PV on Oregon Coast
      ID: 1010151016
      Fri, Jul 20, 2012, 21:29
You're confusing Polynesians with indigenous Asian population of Japanese, Chinese, and Korean, who stay fairly true to traditional Asian diets.
Polynesians eT lots of fatty food which is why they have obesity issues. Asians outnumber Polynesians in Hawaii by a large margin.
Besides, spam isn't nearly as bad as bacon. Fry an equal amount in a pan and there's hardly any residual fat with the spam.
 
1360Boldwin
      ID: 18643169
      Sat, Jul 21, 2012, 05:23
Hawaiians have a love affair with Spam - they eat it as a delicacy, adding it to soups and stews, treating it as a side dish for breakfast, and enjoying it as the main event for lunch and dinner. Residents of Hawaii consume more Spam than populations anywhere else in the world: More than four million cans every year, or an average twelve cans of Spam per person per year. In fact, Hawaii is so well associated with Spam that Hormel even introduced a limited edition "Hawaii can in 2003.
Hawaiins, the walking dead.

Why do people doubt me?
 
1362bibA
      ID: 54522612
      Sat, Jul 21, 2012, 12:58
Don't ever doubt B - He knows what he's talking about! Life expectancy be state

 
1363PV on Oregon Coast
      ID: 1010151016
      Sat, Jul 21, 2012, 15:25
Boldwin. The walking brain dead.
 
1364Boldwin
      ID: 18643169
      Sat, Jul 21, 2012, 19:52
Ah, Japanese just have better longevity genes.
 
1365Boldwin
      ID: 18643169
      Sat, Jul 21, 2012, 19:57
The Japanese are amongst the longest-lived people in the world.

Japan boasts the world's longest average lifespan.

Your loaded population sample in Hawaii certainly owes their longevity to their traditional dietary ways and their genes, not the wonder that is socialized medicine. Or spam for that matter.
 
1366Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Sat, Jul 21, 2012, 20:39
It almost certainly has nothing to do with Japan's universal health care system, right?
 
1367Boldwin
      ID: 18643169
      Sat, Jul 21, 2012, 21:37
Of course not. Tho I am sure Obama, Ezekiel Emanuel and PD would like to endorse sepukku for the elderly.
 
1368DWetzel
      ID: 31111810
      Sat, Jul 21, 2012, 21:40
Of course you are.
 
1369Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Sat, Jul 21, 2012, 22:04
Of course not.

Hahaha. Yes, their health care system has nothing at all to do with how they do on standard metrics of health and longevity.

Well, you've got balls, I'll tell you that. When backed into a corner, simply deny the obvious.
 
1370Boldwin
      ID: 18643169
      Sun, Jul 22, 2012, 03:07
As you have frequently pointed out, there are plenty of socialized medical systems around the world. They are standing out because they are genetic and dietary standouts. Not because they have the best socialism.
 
1371Tree
      ID: 53555306
      Sun, Jul 22, 2012, 06:24
people doubt you because you're often fooled by the simplest of hoaxes and lies. look no further than the video you recently posted about the tasmanian tiger.
 
1372Boldwin
      ID: 18643169
      Sun, Jul 22, 2012, 18:51
Yeah, that was rare. I had just watched an hour long Discovery Channel with a tracker who was completely convinced they were not extinct, finding used sleeping positions, etc, and then I run across a mainstream movie quality special effect portrayal. Animals are one area of the internet overrun with hoaxes and I've seen and discarded plenty, but this was one very convincing movie clip that hit me at the right time.
 
1373Mith
      ID: 18451815
      Fri, Jul 27, 2012, 12:34
Got one of these today:
This letter is to inform you that UnitedHealthcare Insurance Company will be rebating a portion of your
health insurance premiums through your employer or group policy holder. This rebate is required by the
Affordable Care Act � the health reform law.

The Affordable Care Act requires UnitedHealthcare Insurance Company to rebate part of the premiums it
received if it does not spend at least 80 percent of the premiums UnitedHealthcare Insurance Company receives
on health care services, such as doctors and hospital bills, and activities to improve health care quality, such as
efforts to improve patient safety. No more than 20 percent of premiums may be spent on administrative costs such
as salaries, sales, and advertising. This is referred to as the �Medical Loss Ratio� standard or the 80/20 rule. The
80/20 rule in the Affordable Care Act is intended to ensure that consumers get value for their health care dollars.
You can learn more about the 80/20 rule and other provisions of the health reform law at:
http://www.healthcare.gov/law/features/costs/value-for-premium/index.html.

What the Medical Loss Ratio Rule Means to You

The Medical Loss Ratio rule is calculated on a State by State basis. In your State, UnitedHealthcare Insurance
Company did not meet the 80/20 standard. In 2011, UnitedHealthcare Insurance Company spent only 79% of a
total of $500,000,000.00 in premium dollars on health care and activities to improve health care quality. Since it
missed the 80 percent target by 1% of premium it receives, UnitedHealthcare Insurance Company must rebate 1%
of the total health insurance premiums paid by the employer and employees in your group health plan. We are
required to send this rebate to your employer or group policyholder by August 1, 2012, or apply this rebate to the
health insurance premium that is due on or after August 1, 2012. Employers or group policyholders must follow
certain rules for distributing the rebate to you.
My letter, which was presumably customized for people who work/live in NYS, says the rule is 85/15. They report spending 84% of their $1.155 billion. Just me and the wife and I've only had United coverage since last July. Also don't know if that means a rebate of 1% of my paid premiums last year or what, so I'm not sure that it will amount to anything.

Curious what the ratios are state by state and how close they came in each and overall.

I think this is one of the important but glossed over regulatory features of the ACA.
 
1374Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Fri, Jul 27, 2012, 12:36
NJ has had that rule for many years, and we would get a small check back about half the years I lived there.
 
1375Boldwin
      ID: 18643169
      Mon, Jul 30, 2012, 22:14
The thinking republican's way out of Obamacare.
 
1376sarge33rd
      ID: 12554167
      Mon, Jul 30, 2012, 22:35
Romney praises Israeli healthcare

Israel created a national health care system in 1995, largely funded through payroll and general tax revenue. The government provides all citizens with health insurance: They get to pick from one of four competing, nonprofit plans. Those insurance plans have to accept all customers�including people with pre-existing conditions�and provide residents with a broad set of government-mandated benefits.

Sound familiar?
 
1377Boldwin
      ID: 18643169
      Mon, Jul 30, 2012, 22:50
He needs to be wrapped in duct tape and held to the grindstone against his will.
 
1378sarge33rd
      ID: 12554167
      Mon, Jul 30, 2012, 23:09
Why? Because he implementd a GOP idea? Because he has said it would be good nationally? Because he recognizes in others, when it has worked?

Maybe Boldwin, it is YOU, who needs his EYES held against the grindstone, until you admit the truth.
 
1379Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Tue, Jul 31, 2012, 21:55
A pro-lifer for universal health care.

A great piece, and a roadmap for the Right.
 
1380sarge33rd
      ID: 12554167
      Tue, Jul 31, 2012, 22:29
superb piece! Thanks for the link PD.
 
1381Boldwin
      ID: 18643169
      Tue, Jul 31, 2012, 23:03
Yeah, that title 'Permission To Live' takes on a whole nuther meaning when you are 22 years old and being deliberately starved to death because the death panel didn't feel like shelling out $30 grand for your surgery.
 
1382sarge33rd
      ID: 12554167
      Tue, Jul 31, 2012, 23:45
But health chiefs have refused to fund the surgery, saying 'insufficient supporting information' has been provided by her GP.

Just curious, what would happen if the GP gave more data? And thats one case B. How many thousands do you want from here in the US< where an insurance company denied treatment or cancelled coverage?
 
1383Tree
      ID: 17039238
      Wed, Aug 01, 2012, 00:56
Yeah, that title 'Permission To Live' takes on a whole nuther meaning when you are 22 years old

as per usual, you point out an extreme example,and attempt to pass it off as the norm.

i will say that i find it odd that the linked article is over a year old, but there was never any update to the story - just blog post after blog post, copying and pasting, copying and pasting.
 
1384Boldwin
      ID: 18643169
      Wed, Aug 01, 2012, 03:51
A lousy $30 grand. And these people looking for the cure for stomach paralysis actually have the youth qualy's most people won't have going for them. What is the cost cutoff the death panel will allow a retiree?
 
1385Boldwin
      ID: 18643169
      Mon, Aug 06, 2012, 20:47
Now you tell us. - NYT
 
1386Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Mon, Aug 06, 2012, 21:52
Part of the problem that stems from too many specialists. The generalist doctor is just not very common coming out of med school anymore.
 
1387Slizz
      ID: 151136106
      Mon, Aug 06, 2012, 22:25
I try to avoid this forum as much as possible but have this to add:

As someone who has multiple pharmaceutical sales reps in the family the good doctors/general practitioners are going to a program called MD VIP. Esentially, it is a way to avoid Obamacare and insurance companies. They take 200-300 of their most-desirable clients, charge them 1-3k/cash a piece, and they are guaranteed an hour a year with them and unlimited calls with no co pay.

The doctors make out because they make the same amount of money, have more free time, and don't have to deal with government bs, insurance bs, staffing, etc. They can just focus on medicine.

Pharmaceutical reps suffer because they lose a whale who used to write alot of scripts as they are no longer a desirable doctor.

I (we) lose as the excess get passed on to another doctor's book where we are left waiting for a sub par doctor as the good ones charge a premium that I don't wish to pay...if they are a high volume doctor we now have to compete with the pharmaceutical reps for their time...and they come in at a rate of 30/day. Each person is looking for 5 minutes too! Wait times increase...etc.

PD - it costs too much money to be a generalist. It's to the point where the best scripts don't even get wrote as its too big of a hassle dealing with insurance companies. Generalists don't have the time now and that trend is likely to continue, maybe even get worse as time passes and more retire or.goto MD VIP.
 
1388Boldwin
      ID: 18643169
      Mon, Aug 06, 2012, 22:34
Of course we anti-socialists blew the whistle on this years ago. It's only news that the NYT gets around to telling us after the facts can no longer help in the decision making. So predictable.
 
1389sarge33rd
      ID: 12554167
      Mon, Aug 06, 2012, 22:36
rofl What was predictable, was you claiming to have foreseen any/all of whatever.
 
1390Razor
      ID: 10734618
      Mon, Aug 06, 2012, 22:49
The shortage of physicians in this country has nothing to do with Obamacare. There was going to be a shortage of physicians anyway with the legions of baby boomers heading into retirement soon and not enough doctors to replace them or care for them. There are already shortages in some areas. But, you know, market forces should sort this out, right? No, but seriously, we'll just start admitting more physicians into med school, stealing more doctors from other countries and forgo the need for an orthopedic surgeon on every block in favor of a general practitioner.

If you follow the sentence "there are not enough doctors in this country to provide care for everyone" with "so we should just not care for everyone," you really ought to re-examine your priorities.
 
1391Boldwin
      ID: 18643169
      Mon, Aug 06, 2012, 23:35
No, but seriously, we'll just start admitting more physicians into med school, stealing more doctors from other countries and forgo the need for an orthopedic surgeon on every block in favor of a general practitioner.

How does that work exactly?

How do we admit any Joe Schmo into med school when we insist on suing every inevitable mistake into a doctor's bankruptcy?

How do we get doctors to chose to make half as much money by going GP instead of specialist? In a free market? Or were you planning on doing it at gunpoint?

Why would a doctor come here if he's going to be told where to practice, what treatment he can prescribe, which underpayments he must accept, etc?

Why would a doctor nearing retirement put up with that crap? They won't.
 
1392sarge33rd
      ID: 12554167
      Mon, Aug 06, 2012, 23:55
And you know this...how precisely Sr Boldwin?

MALPRACTICE lawsuits...you would do away with them? Right, until it was your son, daughter, spouse, brother, sister, parent on the OR table and they took the wrong limb off. Or left a device in the abdomen and closed up the patient, only to have said device cause an infection and kill the patient 3 weeks later.

You re so short-sighted Boldwin, it is a wonder, you dont forget to breathe.
 
1393Boldwin
      ID: 18643169
      Tue, Aug 07, 2012, 00:01
Well sleep apnea is not unheard of around these parts.
 
1394Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Tue, Aug 07, 2012, 00:03
The declining number of generalists have nothing to do with malpractice costs and everything to do with salary. A radiologist can make literally twice as much as a generalist and can be at a hospital which does 90% of the paperwork for them.

Twice the salary and 10% of the paperwork doesn't really make this a tough choice.
 
1395sarge33rd
      ID: 12554167
      Tue, Aug 07, 2012, 00:14
GPs are much exposed to malpractice. That is generally within the realm of those same specialists, where the annualized incomes are vastly higher than for the family doctor.
 
1396sarge33rd
      ID: 12554167
      Tue, Aug 07, 2012, 00:23
should have read of course...GPs arent much exposed...
 
1397Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Tue, Aug 07, 2012, 10:57
They are all exposed. And while malpractice insurance is a problem, it is a problem because doctors continue to make mistakes and compound it by hiding behind a legal structure which has no goal of reducing awards.

Also, doctors and hospitals have a pretty good way of reducing malpractice costs already-- counterintuitively, by saying "sorry." This has resulted in dropped per-incident costs by 50%.

So instead of letting the insurance companies of doctors who are found guilty of malpractice in court keep more money, a better way would be to stop the suits from occurring up front.

The Right, of course, will never pick up on this as a policy idea because this will reduce the amount of blame they can heap onto Obama, though I was pleased to see a good story about this on FOX News.
 
1398biliruben
      ID: 59551120
      Tue, Aug 07, 2012, 14:09
For-profit hospitals and an army of cardiologists.

The sweet, deadly, expensive mix.

As an aside, I got a call yesterday which I can only assume was a survey paid for by health insurers. I think, based on the questions, they are concerned about the impacts of the exchanges, and trying to figure out how to position themselves, and what products to offer.

The interviewer was from Florida, and was pretty clueless, but was remarkably candid and interested in my strong distaste for health insurers, far beyond what I would consider professional curiosity.

I had a to explain to her what single-payer was, and she says "just like obamacare, right?" I laughed and explained it was pretty much the opposite.
 
1399Boldwin
      ID: 57242212
      Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 06:04
Interesting wrinkle...what poor person will buy insurance?
the IRS� ability to actually collect these penaltaxes is limited to garnishing income tax refund checks. If an individual is not getting a refund, the IRS is impotent. - Peter Schiff
 
1400Boldwin
      ID: 57242212
      Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 06:17
Whackiest defense I've seen yet, probably just taking 'silver lining' rationalizing to absurd levels but I'll comment further after I can force my mind to wrap around this counterintuitive notion...
Kavanaugh stressed that his methodical analysis was not spurred by blinkered lawyerly nitpicking. On the contrary, he stressed, his outing of the �individual mandate� as an option served vital conservative principles and interests. He observed that the ACA could be �the leading edge of a shift� to �privatize the social safety net and government assistance programs.� Judges, he said, should be reluctant to put the brakes on such a trend.
But then The New Republic has always been a very slippery source and in my mind somewhat underhanded in not disclosing their agenda.
 
1401Khahan
      ID: 39432178
      Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 09:25
the IRS� ability to actually collect these penaltaxes is limited to garnishing income tax refund checks. If an individual is not getting a refund, the IRS is impotent. - Peter Schiff

So the big question is - what will change? People who can't afford health insurance still won't buy it. Still won't pay for it on the back end and we'll still have to cover them thru our own rates.

But its still mandatory.
 
1403sarge33rd
      ID: 12554167
      Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 13:30
To have an income, one must be employed. So the unemployed (those whom the IRS is unable to garnish refunds), would be on medi-caid and thus exempt from the requirement. Even the "working poor", file for their annual refund and lacking insurance, they would see those refunds garnished.

 
1405boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 16:08
So in practice this will become a tax on the working poor, since it will be cheaper to get less of refund then by insurance?
 
1406Boldwin
      ID: 327262311
      Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 16:12
Peter Schiff
 
1407sarge33rd
      ID: 12554167
      Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 16:16
re 1405...false. I had posted a link a month r so ago, that allowed one to see their premium under the PPACA and the penalty. In all cases I am aware of, the premium is LESS than the penalty.

Currently for me to buy individual Major medical, with a $5,000 deductible, is $247/m. Now factor in the $400/m for the deductible, and then the 20% co-pay, and it becomes quite expensive. Under PPACA? My annualized premium is projected to be $647, with a penalty for non-compliance of approx $900.

People need to QUIT speaking out on this topic, when they have n facts, and only supposition at their disposal.
 
1408Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 16:16
The poor, if not already enrolled in a program, will be getting subsidies--they aren't going to be subject to any penalties.
 
1410boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 16:32
Just to clarify sarge I wasn't talking out on the subject, I was just asking a question.

Currently for me to buy individual Major medical, with a $5,000 deductible, is $247/m. Now factor in the $400/m for the deductible, and then the 20% co-pay, and it becomes quite expensive. Under PPACA? My annualized premium is projected to be $647, with a penalty for non-compliance of approx $900.

so just to clarify the math a bit, you pay now 247*12=$2964 a year now but under PPACA your premium will go down by $2317 thorough price changes and/or subsidies?
 
1411sarge33rd
      ID: 12554167
      Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 16:40
yep. And if you add the deductible to the premium, if I USE the insurance, it costs me $7964/yr.
 
1412Boldwin
      ID: 327262311
      Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 16:44
The poor, if not already enrolled in a program, will be getting subsidies--they aren't going to be subject to any penalties. - PD

The poor will not enroll in the program. Even with subsidies, they are poor. They can't afford a toaster let alone healthcare. They will most definately be subject to penalties, not be insured, but the government will be mostly powerless to retrieve blood from a turnip. They'll forfeit their EIC. But other than that...

 
1413sarge33rd
      ID: 12554167
      Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 16:48
Those who are that poor, would be encompassed under the expanded medi-care B.
 
1414boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 17:02
re 1411: I guess a follow up question would be under PPACA would you continue to use $5000 deductible plan or would you upgrade to lower deductible?
 
1415Boldwin
      ID: 327262311
      Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 17:04
Show me a link Sarge.
 
1416sarge33rd
      ID: 12554167
      Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 17:08
I'd upgrade to a lower ded boikin. A 5k ded to be honest, would wipe me out.

It has been linked B.
 
1417Boldwin
      ID: 327262311
      Thu, Aug 23, 2012, 17:13
Nevermind, Sarge. I looked it up myself. I'd rather let them try and collect the fine than spend every waking moment filling out forms and standing in line for a handout.
 
1418Frick
      ID: 14082314
      Fri, Aug 24, 2012, 13:32
An interesting side effect of the ACA

From Bloomberg
 
1419sarge33rd
      ID: 12554167
      Fri, Aug 24, 2012, 14:03
the para that LEAPS out at me:

All this also has a Keynesian-type effect to make up for the way state and local governments keep cutting back spending. This was the first recession where we responded by cutting public-sector jobs. Government employment has fallen to its lowest level since 1968, Bloomberg’s BGOV Barometer shows. The cutbacks forced by balanced-budget clauses in many state constitutions only hold back a real recovery.
 
1420Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Fri, Aug 24, 2012, 14:05
That's always been the case. Typically the federal government steps in, but the GOP is having none of this "deficit spending in a recession" nonsense.
 
1421sarge33rd
      ID: 12554167
      Fri, Aug 24, 2012, 14:23
saw a meme the other day on FB along those lines...showed a hungry child and said:

The GOP; starving their 4 yr old, to pay their Mastercard
 
1422Boldwin
      ID: 327262311
      Fri, Aug 24, 2012, 15:31
Yeah, that's the problem. Too much fiscal responsibility, not enuff government handouts.
 
1423sarge33rd
      ID: 12554167
      Fri, Aug 24, 2012, 15:44
too much fiscal responsibility? B, please quit with the empty rhetoric. Every independent review of the "fiscally responsible" Ryan plan, has it adding TRILLIONS to the debt.
 
1424Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Fri, Aug 24, 2012, 15:44
Pretty boilerplate partisan stuff there. Anyone who thinks that the economy would be better off if the government, essentially, stopped being the safety net for the country really doesn't understand the economy well enough to be offering an opinion.
 
1425Boldwin
      ID: 327262311
      Fri, Aug 24, 2012, 15:55
...said the man who hasn't read Keynes and Hayek to the man who has.
 
1426Nuclear Gophers
      ID: 29542105
      Sat, Aug 25, 2012, 09:19
1423-and where was the independent review of the fiscally responsible Obama plan that raised the Debt 1 trillion per year for the past 4 years? hmmmmm
 
1427Nuclear Gophers
      ID: 29542105
      Sat, Aug 25, 2012, 09:28
and how is that fiscally responsible? hmmmmm
 
1428Nuclear Gophers
      ID: 29542105
      Sat, Aug 25, 2012, 09:35
so you agree with fiscal irresponsibility? hmmmmm
 
1429Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Sat, Aug 25, 2012, 11:04
#123: You mean a little under a trillion dollars, I believe.

You obviously have a different priority than I do. I believe it is important to not keep the country from falling apart bu jacking up the unemployment rate. You believe it is important to keep the books balanced. I've got plenty of experts who say that Obama's policies (and, to some degree, some of Bush's toward the end) spent money while keeping unemployment low and maintaining demand. And I haven't seen jack saying that the economy as a whole would be better off, right now (not in the future sometime, but right now) would be better if we have instead been asking the unemployed to pay down Mr. Bush's debt. Happy to hear of any evidence, however.
 
1431Boldwin
      ID: 157332421
      Sat, Aug 25, 2012, 11:34
And I haven't seen jack saying that the economy as a whole would be better off, right now (not in the future sometime, but right now) would be better if we have instead...



AEI
 
1432sarge33rd
      ID: 12554167
      Sat, Aug 25, 2012, 12:17
an erroneous prediction, made by a political advisory team 4 years ago, does not prove/disprove the question D asked. We'd need a battery of economists for that answer B.
 
1433Mith
      ID: 18451815
      Sat, Aug 25, 2012, 12:26
I could be mistaken but I think these "predictions" were actually the current (a the time) CBO projections that Obama was citing. And if memory does serve, I believe those projections were made before the full depth of the crash and recession was understood.
 
1434Mith
      ID: 18451815
      Sat, Aug 25, 2012, 13:11
I was mistaken. The figures (and the graph) are from a report relesed by President-elect Obama (p.4).

Still, if memory serves there was yet more to learn at the time about the state of the economy, perhaps it was that the full depth of the toxic assets scandal hadn't been realized.
 
1435Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Sat, Aug 25, 2012, 14:22
From that chart, we don't know what the unemployment rate would have been if the stimulus would not have passed--the Right seems to be taking Obama's word for it at the time (which, since then, they have walked back as no one, not even AEI predicted how badly the recession actually was).

#1434 is exactly right.
 
1436Boldwin
      ID: 59742519
      Sat, Aug 25, 2012, 20:07
Or you could go with the blindingly obvious. Obama's moves were counterproductive.
 
1437sarge33rd
      ID: 12554167
      Sat, Aug 25, 2012, 20:35
Or you could go with the real truth, the obstructionist GOP House, preventing any measures from having even a chance at working.
 
1438Boldwin
      ID: 59742519
      Sat, Aug 25, 2012, 20:44
He got 4+ trillion dollars in stimulus money out of congress. Only a democrat could poor-mouth that much money.
 
1439Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Sun, Aug 26, 2012, 01:13
I'm not sure where you are getting your numbers. Obama pushed for, and received, a well-publicized $787 billion stimulus package of which $288 billion were in the form of tax cuts.

Bush, of course, passed two stimulus packages, in 2002 and 2008, both of which were smaller and targeted differently.
 
1440sarge33rd
      ID: 12554167
      Sun, Aug 26, 2012, 01:20
Only a Democrat...hahahahahaha

Bush vetoed in 8 years, 2 spending bills. 1 dealt with funding stem cell research and the other with healthcare for poor kids. Outside of those 2, Bush couldnt spend fast enough.
 
1441Nuclear Gophers
      ID: 29542105
      Sun, Aug 26, 2012, 06:46
1. The $825 billion package will exceed $1.1 trillion after the interest ($300 billion) to pay it back is added in.

2. The legislation could send billions of taxpayer dollars to groups like ACORN, which is under federal investigation for voter fraud.

3. The plan spends $650 million on digital TV coupons.

4. $600 million for new cars for the federal government.

5. $6 billion for colleges/universities -- many of which have billion-dollar endowments.

6. $50 million in funding for the National Endowment of the Arts.

7. $150 million for the Smithsonian Institution.

8. $44 million for repairs to U.S. Department of Agriculture headquarters in D.C.

9. The plan establishes at least 32 new government programs at a cost of over $136 billion.

10. The legislation increases by seven million the number of people who get a check back from the IRS that exceeds what they paid in payroll and income taxes
These are a few things to really know about the stimulus.
 
1442Nuclear Gophers
      ID: 29542105
      Sun, Aug 26, 2012, 07:07
All the above Im sure are just a drop in the old bucket.
 
1443Pancho Villa
      ID: 59645318
      Sun, Aug 26, 2012, 09:55
Let's take a moment to examine the list in #1442.

#1. Is there documentation as to what the borrowing percentage rate is and the timeframe to reach those figures? Interest rates are at historical lows, so the past few years have been one of the most economically frugal times to borrow money.

#2. The legislation could send Confusing. Could send or did send? Groups like ACORN? Confusing. How much money in stimulus funds went directly to ACORN?

#3. I'm not sure what digital TV coupons are. Hopefully it's related to a product manufactured in the US private sector, helping to create or save jobs in that industry.

#4. 600 million in new car sales is a huge boost to that industry, are there figures as to what percentage of those sales are directly related to domestic production?

#5. Not enough info. 6 billion for college construction projects(jobs)?; additional teaching personnel(jobs)?; research projects(jobs)?; student grants?; all of the above?

#6. I don't know that the federal government should be in the arts endowment business. Is that 50 million above and beyond whatever they normally receive annually? Is that an excessive jump to what they've received in recent years as a percentage of GDP?

#7. That seems excessive. Again, is that above and beyond their regular annual budget? How much, if any, includes job-creating construction projects?

#8. Sounds like construction jobs.

#9. Need more info, but troubling on the face of it. Hard to understand how the fed workforce has shed jobs in the past few years though.

#10. Need more info. Was this a one year development, multi-year plan? Generally, the conservative mantra has been it's a good thing when money is in the hands of citizens instead of government coffers. My opinion is that the Earned Income Tax Credit has always been fiscally irresponsible. Expanding the roles for a year or two during the height of the recession might have made some sense, but where do we stand as to the this expansion in 2012?

Since the list wasn't linked to a source, can we assume that NG researched the subject thoroughly, and can answer all these questions?

 
1444Perm Dude
      ID: 3210201915
      Sun, Aug 26, 2012, 10:06
1. Sure. That's not $4 billion. In fact, the real problem is that the stimulus wasn't large enough.

2. "ACORN, which is under federal investigation for voter fraud." No, they are not. They were, however, part of an investigation as the victims of voter registration fraud committed by others.

3-8. Yup--is was a spending bill all right.

9. The good Speaker doesn't specify these, but the clear implication is that $787 billion should be unsupervised. Not sure that is a very "conservative" response.

10. This is what tax credits look like. Did you expect something else?
 
1445sarge33rd
      ID: 12554167
      Sun, Aug 26, 2012, 15:03
I was gonna say, #10 sounds like what happens after ANY tax cut. Since when, does the GOP have issue with tax cuts? Oh yeah, when a Dem does it.



Harvard JD, Bush Economic Speech Writer, Conservative strategist; David Frum
 
1446sarge33rd
      ID: 12554167
      Tue, Aug 28, 2012, 01:22
link

Among the seven nations studied—Australia, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States—the U.S. ranks last overall, as it did in the 2007, 2006, and 2004 editions of Mirror, Mirror. Most troubling, the U.S. fails to achieve better health outcomes than the other countries, and as shown in the earlier editions, the U.S. is last on dimensions of access, patient safety, coordination, efficiency, and equity. The Netherlands ranks first, followed closely by the U.K. and Australia. The 2010 edition includes data from the seven countries and incorporates patients' and physicians' survey results on care experiences and ratings on various dimensions of care.{emphasis added}